论文部分内容阅读
目的比较3种不同质量分数品红溶液检测充填体微渗漏的性能。方法于2011年10—12月在青岛市口腔医院将因正畸治疗拔除的人离体前磨牙30颗随机分为3组,每组10颗。于离体牙颊面釉牙骨质界冠方1.0mm处制备4.0mm(近远中向)×3.0mm(冠根向)×2.0mm(颊舌向)的标准V类洞型。常规树脂充填并经冷热循环(5℃和55℃恒温生理盐水,400次)后分别放入质量分数为0.5%(A组)、1.0%(B组)、2.0%(C组)的品红溶液中浸泡96h,冲洗吹干后将离体牙沿颊舌向垂直于充填体表面片切。根管显微镜下观察充填体边缘染料浸入情况并摄片。采用Image-ProPlus6.0图像分析软件测量品红溶液浸入深度。结果 A、B、C3组品红溶液渗入深度分别为(0.72±0.55)mm、(1.25±0.35)mm、(0.93±0.24)mm,3组之间差异有统计学意义(F=4.570,P<0.05)。组内两两比较结果显示,A、B组差异有统计学意义(t=2.881,P<0.05),A、C组差异无统计学意义(t=0.647,P>0.05),B、C组差异有统计学意义(t=2.234,P<0.05)。结论质量分数为1.0%的品红溶液渗透速度最快,0.5%、2.0%的品红溶液渗透速度较慢;2.0%品红溶液组渗透稳定性较好,1.0%品红溶液组次之,0.5%品红溶液组最差。
Objective To compare the performance of three kinds of magenta solution with different mass fraction to detect the microleakage of filling body. Methods From October to December in 2011, 30 patients with premolar tooth excised from orthodontic treatment in Qingdao Stomatological Hospital were randomly divided into 3 groups with 10 in each group. A standard Class V cavity of 4.0 mm (mesiodosection) × 3.0 mm (crown root) × 2.0 mm (bucco-lingual) was prepared at a crown 1.0 mm from the incisive glaucoma. Conventional resin was filled and put into mass fraction of 0.5% (group A), 1.0% (group B) and 2.0% (group C) after cooling and heating cycle (5 ℃ and 55 ℃ normal saline, 400 times) Soaked in red solution for 96h, rinsed and dried, the isolated teeth were cut along the buccal and lingual surfaces perpendicular to the surface of the filling body. Root canal microscope to observe the edge of the filler dye immersion and radiography. The depth of magenta solution immersion was measured using Image-ProPlus 6.0 image analysis software. Results The infiltration depths of magenta solution in groups A, B and C3 were (0.72 ± 0.55) mm and (1.25 ± 0.35) mm and (0.93 ± 0.24) mm, respectively. There was significant difference between the three groups (F = 4.570, P <0.05). There was no significant difference between group A and group C (t = 0.647, P> 0.05), group B and group C The difference was statistically significant (t = 2.234, P <0.05). Conclusion The penetration rate of magenta solution with the mass fraction of 1.0% is the fastest, while that of magenta solution with 0.5% and 2.0% is slower. The penetration of 2.0% magenta solution is better, followed by 1.0% 0.5% magenta solution group worst.