论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较三种玻璃离子水门汀牙体充填修复后边缘封闭性的差别。方法:离体前磨牙80颗按要求制备洞型,随机分成4组,分别用三种玻璃离子水门汀(新世纪齿科材料有限公司玻璃离子水门汀I型、II型,日本GCFujiII)充填修复,另外一组用玻璃离子水门汀II型修复后再涂隔湿剂(凡士林)。经冷热交替试验(0℃～55℃,循环500次),采用1%亚甲蓝染料渗入法观察充填体与牙体洞壁间边缘微渗漏的情况。结果:玻璃离子水门汀I型(普通型)边缘封闭性与其他各组存在显著差异(P<0.01);玻璃离子水门汀II型(树脂增强型)、GCFujiII与隔湿剂组边缘封闭性存在差异(P<0.05);玻璃离子水门汀II型与GCFujiII边缘封闭性比较不存在差异(P>0.05)。结论:玻璃离子水门汀II型与GCFujiII边缘封闭效果相同;隔湿剂能降低微渗漏。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the difference of edge sealability of three kinds of glass ionomer cement after tooth filling. METHODS: Eighty premolar premolars were prepared as required. They were randomly divided into four groups. Three types of glass ionomer cement (glass ionomer cement I, II, Japan GCFuji II) A group of glass ionomer cement II repair and then coated with wetting agent (Vaseline). After alternating cold and hot test (0 ℃ ~ 55 ℃, 500 cycles), the microleakage between the filling body and the cavity wall was observed by 1% methylene blue dye infiltration method. Results: There was a significant difference in the edge sealability of Type I (normal) glass ionomer cements compared with other groups (P <0.01). There was a difference in edge sealability between glass ionomer cement type II (resin reinforced), GCFuji II and moisture barrier agent P <0.05). There was no significant difference in edge sealing between glass ionomer cement II and GCFuji II (P> 0.05). CONCLUSION: Glass ionomer cement type II has the same effect as GCFujiII edge seal; moisture barrier can reduce microleakage.