摘要
目的比较SonicFill超声流体后牙树脂与其他几种树脂在两种光照模式下充填后微渗漏的差异。方法 60颗健康离体后牙制备近中Ⅱ类洞。样本随机分为A^F共6组。其中,A^C组采用软启动光照模式,分别使用SonicFill超声流体后牙树脂、Filtek P60树脂、Filtek Z250树脂充填;D^F采用高强度光照模式,分别使用上述材料充填。置于0.1%罗丹明B染色剂中浸泡24小时后沿近远中向剖开,荧光显微镜下观测染料浸入的深度。结果龈壁的微渗漏情况:软启动模式组中,三种材料充填后微渗漏程度无明显差异,高强度光照组SonicFill充填后微渗漏值小于其余两种,(P<0.05);轴壁的微渗漏情况:两种光照模式下,三种材料的微渗漏情况均无明显差异;软启动模式固化后的样本微渗漏值小于高强度模式;龈壁的微渗漏值大于轴壁,(P<0.05)。结论三种材料充填固化后均产生不同程度的聚合收缩,SonicFill的微渗漏值最小,软启动光照模式有助于减小充填后微渗漏值。
Objective To compare the differences of filling microleakage between SonicFill ultrasonic flowable posterior teeth resin and other kinds of resin in different curing modes. Method 60 healthy extracted posterior teeth were selected and Class Ⅱ was prepared at the near neighbour occlusion. The samples were divided into 6 groups randomly,named from A to F. Group A to group C applied soft start light mode,and were filled with Sonic Fill ultrasonic flowable posterior teeth resin,Filtek Z250 composite resin,Filtek P60 composite resin respectively. Group D to group F applied high light mode,and filled with restorations metioned above respectively. All the teeth were kept in Rhodamine-B solution for 24 hours,and were sectioned mesiodistal though the midline of the materials and examined with the fluorescence microscope. Result Microleakage of gingival wall： at soft start mode group,no significant difference was found between the three kinds of materials after filling; at high strength light group,Sonic Fill microleakage values less than the other two（ P 0. 05）. Microleakage of shaft wall： there were no significant difference between the three kinds of materials in two light modes; soft start mode of cured sample microleakage values less than high intensity mode; the microleakage of gingival wall is less than the shaft wall（ P 0. 05）. Conclusion The three kinds of materials exists different degrees of polymerization shrinkage after filling,SonicFill is minimum; soft start photoactivation mode helps reduce filling microleakage.
出处
《中国医刊》
CAS
2015年第10期60-62,共3页
Chinese Journal of Medicine
