论文部分内容阅读
目的探讨光固化和化学固化模式对双重固化流动复合树脂聚合能力的影响。方法本研究于2011年12月至2012年3月在南京大学口腔医学院修复实验室完成。将双重固化流动复合树脂核材料A(Luxa Core)、B(Clearfil DC Core)和双重固化树脂水门汀C(DUOLINK)3种材料在光固化和化学固化2种固化模式下各制作5个试件,共制作30个试件。试件固化后0.5、24和120h,分别测量其表面努氏显微硬度以判断聚合度;固化后120h的试件用无水乙醇浸泡24h,再次测量其表面硬度,计算浸泡前后硬度降低百分比值以判断聚合的交联密度。采用单因素方差分析和独立样本t检验对数据进行统计学分析。结果 3种材料在2种固化模式下,硬度值均随测量时间的增加而增大(P<0.05),固化后120h硬度值达到最大;固化后120h的硬度值均是光固化模式的显著高于化学固化模式的[A材料:光固化模式(63.88±3.85)MPa,化学固化模式(39.26±0.89)MPa,P<0.05;B材料:光固化模式(66.94±0.97)MPa,化学固化模式(44.18±1.84)MPa,P<0.05;C材料:光固化模式(64.21±1.07)MPa,化学固化模式(50.69±1.47)MPa,P<0.05]。3种材料固化后120h的硬度值经无水乙醇浸泡24h后均出现显著降低(P<0.05),其中A和B材料在化学固化模式下的硬度降低百分比值显著大于光固化模式下的,而C材料在2种固化模式下的硬度降低百分比值差异无统计学意义[A材料:光固化模式(19.58±1.72)%,化学固化模式(25.18±2.82)%,P<0.05;B材料:光固化模式(17.74±1.75)%,化学固化模式(24.56±1.78)%,P<0.05;C材料:光固化模式(23.10±2.50)%,化学固化模式(23.72±1.65)%,P=0.658]。结论固化模式能够对双重固化流动复合树脂的聚合能力(聚合度和交联密度)产生显著影响。
Objective To investigate the effects of photo-curing and chemical curing modes on the polymerization of double-cure flow composite resins. Methods The study was performed from December 2011 to March 2012 at the Laboratory of Stomatology, Nanjing University. Five samples were prepared under two curing modes: light curing and chemical curing, respectively, using three materials, Luxa Core A, Clearfil DC Core B and DUOLINK C, A total of 30 specimens were produced. The specimens were cured at 0.5, 24 and 120 h, respectively, to measure the Knoop microhardness of the surface to determine the degree of polymerization. The specimens after 120 h curing were immersed in absolute ethanol for 24 h and the surface hardness was measured again. To determine the polymerization crosslinking density. Data were analyzed statistically using one-way ANOVA and independent sample t-test. Results The hardness values of the three materials increased with the increase of the measurement time (P <0.05) under the two curing modes, and reached the maximum at 120h after curing. The hardness at 120h after curing was significantly higher than that of the photo-curing mode In the chemical curing mode of [A material: photocurable mode (63.88 ± 3.85) MPa, chemical cure mode (39.26 ± 0.89) MPa, P <0.05; B material: photocurable mode (66.94 ± 0.97) MPa, 44.18 ± 1.84) MPa, P <0.05; C material: light curing mode (64.21 ± 1.07) MPa, chemical curing mode (50.69 ± 1.47 MPa, P <0.05). The hardness values of 120h after curing of all three materials were significantly decreased (P <0.05) after being immersed in absolute ethanol for 24h, and the percentages of hardness reduction of A and B in chemical curing mode were significantly higher than those in curing mode There was no significant difference in the percent decrease of hardness of C material between the two curing modes [A material: light curing mode (19.58 ± 1.72)%, chemical curing mode (25.18 ± 2.82)%, P <0.05; (17.74 ± 1.75)%, chemical cure mode (24.56 ± 1.78)%, P <0.05; C material: light cure mode (23.10 ± 2.50)%, chemical cure mode (23.72 ± 1.65)%, P = 0.658] . Conclusion The curing mode can have a significant effect on the polymerization ability (degree of polymerization and crosslinking density) of the dual-cure flowable composite resin.