树脂球法恢复二类洞邻面接触关系的临床研究

目的 观察树脂球法用于二类洞复合树脂充填时邻面接触关系的恢复效果.方法 选择130颗后牙邻(牙合)面洞,根据患牙缺损颊舌连线的切面与邻牙接触区的问距将窝洞分为A、B、C三型,所有窝洞随机分为两组进行树脂充填.对照组使用传统方法,实验组使用树脂球法.充填完成后采用牙线法测试接触区的松紧度.术后一周复查食物嵌塞情况.结果 实验组64颗患牙邻面接触关系临床满意率为89%,术后食物嵌塞发生率为3.1%;对照组66颗患牙邻面接触关系临床满意率为19.7%;术后食物嵌塞发生率为27.3%;经统计学χ2检验,实验组与对照组在接触关系的临床满意率、食物嵌塞的发生率上均存在极显著差异(P<0.01).A型洞接触关系临床满意率实验组为100%,对照组为100%.无显著差异(P>0.05);B型洞临床满意率实验组为95.6%.对照组为O,差异有极显著性(P<0.01);C型洞接触关系临床满意率实验组为27.3%,对照组为O%,差异无显著性(P>O.05).结论 树脂球法用于二类洞复合树脂充填可以获得临床满意的邻面接触关系.从而减少充填术后食物嵌塞的发生.     

流动复合树脂衬洞在楔状缺损修复中的疗效评价

目的:评价流动复合树脂作为洞衬材料在楔状缺损修复中的价值。方法:选择85例患者的360颗楔状缺损患牙为研究对象,采用自身对照设计,随机选择每例患者一侧患牙为实验组,采用流动树脂衬洞后再以复合树脂充填;对侧同名牙为对照组,直接采用复合树脂充填。以改良的USPHS/Ryge临床修复体质量评估系统评价修复后1年和3年的疗效。应用SPSS12.0软件包对数据进行统计学处理。结果:实验组在边缘完整性和术后敏感方面优于对照组,有显著性差异。在边缘完整性方面,1年复查时实验组满意率为100%,高于对照组的95.65%(P<0.01);3年复查时实验组满意率为98.56%,高于对照组的92.42%(P<0.01),均有统计学差异。术后1年复查时,实验组未出现敏感病例,而对照组6颗患牙出现中度敏感,需要更换修复体。实验组优于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:流动复合树脂洞衬用于楔状缺损修复可提高边缘完整性和降低术后敏感发生率。     

3M流动树脂与3M玻璃离子修复乳磨牙Ⅱ类洞的临床疗效比较

目的:探索儿童口腔科2种常用充填材料用于乳磨牙邻牙合面龋洞(Ⅱ类洞)充填治疗的临床疗效。方法:将178名4~6岁儿童266颗乳磨牙Ⅱ类洞随机分为2组,即3M流动树脂组(实验A组)、3M玻璃离子组(对照B组),对乳磨牙进行充填治疗后1、2年复查比较2种材料治疗的临床疗效。结果:采用3M流动树脂和3M玻璃离子对Ⅱ类洞进行充填治疗后1年成功率分别为96.00%和87.80%,充填治疗后2年成功率分别为95.76%和86.61%,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:3M流动树脂用于乳磨牙邻牙合面龋洞充填治疗的临床效果优于3M玻璃离子。     

流动树脂洞衬材料治疗楔状缺损的效果观察

目的观察流动树脂洞衬材料对楔状缺损修复效果的影响。方法选择深度、大小、症状接近的左右两侧下颌第一前磨牙楔状缺损患者40例,随机选择一侧作为A组,采用流动树脂衬洞、复合树脂充填;另一侧作为B组,采用复合树脂直接充填,2组均使用自酸蚀粘接剂。用视觉模拟标尺法（visual analogues cale,VAS）评价治疗前、治疗后即刻、治疗后6个月、治疗后12个月患牙对冷刺激的敏感度;用改良的美国公共卫生署（United States Public Health Service,USPHS）评价系统对患牙充填后6、12个月的效果进行临床评价。结果治疗前A组与B组患牙敏感度差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）;治疗后即刻、治疗后6、12个月,A组对冷刺激的敏感度分别为1.65±0.86、1.26±0.64、1.26±0.74;B组对冷刺激的敏感度分别为2.55±1.04、2.03±0.85、1.83±0.79;2组治疗前与治疗后差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;2组间在治疗后3次检查时敏感度的差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）;A组与B组间成功率差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。结论采用流动树脂衬洞、复合树脂充填修复楔状缺损,可有效降低患牙术后敏感度。     

富士IX玻璃离子与光敏瓷化树脂充填后牙邻洞的临床疗效比较

目的比较富士IX玻璃离子和光敏瓷化树脂充填后牙邻(牙合)洞的临床疗效.方法随机选择需要充填的后牙邻(牙合)面洞型836个牙,常规制备窝洞,分别采用富士IX玻璃离子或光敏瓷化树脂充填窝洞.结果富士IX玻璃离子和光敏瓷化树脂充填成功率分别为93.6%、96.6%,两组比较无显著性差异(P＜0.05).结论富士IX玻璃离子和光敏瓷化树脂修复后牙邻(牙合)面洞效果无显著差异.     

流动树脂修复楔状缺损的疗效观察

目的 评价流动树脂应用于楔状缺损的临床效果。方法 以40名成年人的55对前磨牙为研究对象,随机分为试验组和对照组。试验组使用Beautifil Flow Plus流动树脂进行充填,对照组使用Filtek Z350流动树脂进行充填。随访1年后观察充填体的脱落率、边缘着色、继发龋及牙髓刺激症状,采用卡方检验分析试验结果。结果 充填术后一年,试验组和对照组的成功率分别为81.82%和70.91%,组间差异无统计学意义（p>0.05）。结论 Beautifil Flow Plus流动树脂具有良好的充填性能,在临床上可应用于楔状缺损的充填。     

纳米树脂美学修复前牙缺损牙的临床观察

将80名患者的96颗不同程度龋损或者有缺损的牙齿,随机分2组：实验组48颗（40例患者）采用纳米树脂充填,对照组48颗（40例患者）采用瓷冠类修复,观察0．5～1年,发现实验组和对照组的患者满意率及修复后并发症控制成功率无明显差异。使用纳米树脂可以使患者就诊次数少、牙体损伤小、术后并发症少,费用低。     

正畸分牙辅助邻面龋充填治疗的临床疗效观察

目的 观察正畸分牙技术用于早期邻面龋复合树脂充填治疗时的临床疗效.方法 选择76例患者的120颗邻面龋患牙为研究对象,随机分为分牙修复组和常规修复组,分牙修复组采用橡皮分牙圈分牙3 d后行树脂充填,常规修复组直接行树脂充填.术后即刻对比两组窝洞类型,术后l周、1年复诊,使用改良美国公共卫生署的临床修复体质量评估系统评价两组的充填效果.结果 分牙修复组共充填窝洞58个,其中单面洞50个,双面洞8个;常规修复组共充填窝洞62个,其中单面洞14个,双面洞48个,分牙修复组单面洞的比例明显高于常规修复组(P＜0.05).术后1年,在充填体完整性方面,分牙修复组与常规修复组的成功率分别为100％和96.61％,差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);在继发龋方面,分牙修复组成功率为94.64％,高于常规修复组(84.75％),但差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);在边缘着色、食物嵌塞及牙龈炎症评价指标方面,分牙修复组的成功率均高于常规修复组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 在复合树脂修复早期邻面龋洞前先分牙,有利于精确去龋,保留更多牙体组织,并且有利于对充填体进行精细抛光,提高临床疗效.     

光谱级树脂作前牙美容修复和后牙充填的疗效比较

目的：比较光谱级树脂（Spectrum TPH)在前牙邻面Ⅲ、Ⅳ类洞及后牙邻He面Ⅰ、Ⅱ类洞充填治疗的疗效比较。方法：前牙Ⅲ类洞68例95个牙，Ⅳ类洞35例55个牙；后牙Ⅰ类洞53例82个牙，Ⅱ类洞48列67个牙，充填后2－2.5年随访观察。结果：前牙修复成功率，Ⅲ类洞89.5%，Ⅳ类洞83.6%。后牙修复成功率，Ⅰ类洞93.9%，Ⅱ类洞81.6%。结论：Spectrum TPH树脂是较好的通用型复合树脂。     

玻璃纤维桩在青少年前牙断冠修复中的临床观察

目的：对比断冠再接与玻璃纤维桩联合树脂桩核修复应用于恒上前牙外伤冠折的修复疗效。方法：65例82颗青少年上前牙外伤冠折断冠后保留完整患牙病例,随机分为实验组41颗,应用玻璃纤维桩进行断冠再接,对照组41颗,用玻璃纤维桩联合树脂桩核冠修复,随访12个月,观察修复效果。结果：实验组1年成功率为97．6％,对照组1年成功率为92．7％。结论：断冠再接技术不但色泽外形上能与剩余牙体组织及邻牙匹配,且与复合树脂比较抗压强度更高,稳定性更好,操作方便,是修复上前牙外伤冠折患牙的有效方法。     

Microleakage of posterior packable resin composites with and without flowable liners

The use of flowable composites as liners in Class II packable composites has been suggested by some manufacturers. However, the contributions of this technique are unproven. This study evaluated marginal microleakage in Class II packable composite restorations with and without the use of a flowable composite liner. A conventional microhybrid composite was used as a control. Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins of Class II cavities was evaluated using 45Ca and autoradiographs. Fifty non-carious, restoration-free human molar teeth were used. Separate mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal Class II cavity preparations were made in each tooth. Gingival margins of all cavities were placed 1 mm apical to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). Four Packable composites (Alert, Surefil, Pyramid and Solitaire) and one conventional microhybrid composite (Renew) with their respective manufacturer's bonding agents were used to restore the cavities. One side of each tooth was restored with composite alone, while the other side was restored with the composite lined with that manufacturer's flowable liner. The restored teeth were thermally stressed and 45Ca was used to evaluate microleakage. Two independent evaluators scored leakage based on the autoradiographs. The results showed flowable composites helped reduce microleakage at gingival margins of Class II restorations (p < 0.05). Gingival margins had higher microleakage than occlusal margins (p < 0.05). Without flowable liners, three packable composites (Alert, Pyramid and Surefil) showed higher leakage (p < 0.05) than the microhybrid control. Only Solitaire packable composite without liner showed no significant difference in microleakage to the control (p > 0.05). Although the flowable liners help reduce microleakage, Alert and Pyramid packable composites with liners still showed higher leakage than the control (p < 0.05). Surefil and Solitaire packable composites with flowable liners showed no significant difference in microleakage (p > 0.05) to the control.     

Comparison of the wear and flexural characteristics of flowable resin composites for posterior lesions

Abstract

Objectives. To determine the localized wear and flexural properties of flowable resin composites for posterior lesions compared with universal resin composites produced by the same manufacturers. Methods. Ten specimens of each of three flowable resins, G-ænial Universal Flo, G-ænial Flo and Clearfil Majesty Flow, and the corresponding resin composite materials, Kalore and Clearfil Majesty Esthetics, were prepared in custom fixtures and subjected to 400,000 wear machine cycles to simulate localized wear. The total maximum depth and volume loss of the wear facets was calculated for each specimen using a profilometer. A three-point bending test was performed to determine the flexural strength, modulus of elasticity and resilience. Values were statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test. Results. The wear depth ranged from 58.3–126.9 m and the volumetric loss ranged from 0.019–0.049 mm³, with significant differences observed between restorative materials. The wear depth of G-ænial Universal Flo was significantly smaller than those of the other resin composites tested. The flexural strengths and elastic modulus ranged from 90.5–135.1 MPa and from 4.7–7.6 GPa, respectively. A significantly greater flexural strength and higher elastic modulus was found for G-ænial Universal Flo than the other composites. Conclusions. The wear and mechanical properties of the flowable resin composites tested suggested improved performance compared with universal resin composites.     

垫底材料对深龋近髓磨牙充填后疼痛及术后敏感的影响

目的 比较玻璃离子水门汀与流动树脂垫底对深龋近髓磨牙充填后的疼痛及术后敏感性。方法120颗深龋近髓磨牙，随机分为对照组，玻璃离子水门汀组和流动树脂组，每组40颗患牙。对照组采用dycal护髓，玻璃离子水门汀组采用dycal护髓和玻璃离子水门汀垫底，流动树脂组采用dycal护髓和流动树脂垫底，酸蚀粘接后，3组上层均加压充填3M ESPE Filtek^TM P60复合树脂。分别于修复后1天，1周，1个月，3个月采用疼痛程度标尺(Visual Analog scales,VAS)记录自觉疼痛程度，采用Ryge评价标准记录对压缩空气刺激的敏感性。结果 术后1天、1周、1个月和3个月，对照组与两个实验组之间自觉疼痛程度上差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，各观察期两实验组之间自觉疼痛程度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。术后1天和1周，3组之间的术后敏感发生率差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)，术后1个月和3个月，玻璃离子水门汀组和流动树脂组与对照组之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，而玻璃离子组与流动树脂组之间差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)...     

The effect of fiber placement or flowable resin lining on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations

PURPOSE: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effect of two fibers (polyethylene or glass) and a flowable resin liner on microleakage in Class II adhesive restorations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II adhesive cavities were prepared on mesial and distal surfaces of 40 extracted sound human molars. The cavity margins were below or above the CEJ. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups according to the restoration technique: group 1: restored with a resin composite (AP-X, Kuraray) in bulk after SE Bond (Kuraray) treatment; group 2: flowable resin liner (Protect Liner F, Kuraray) was used before composite restoration; in group 3, a polyethylene fiber (Ribbond) and in group 4, a glass fiber (everStick NET, StickTech) was placed into the bed of flowable resin before composite restoration. Samples were finished, stored in distilled water for 7 days at room temperature, and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C. After sealing the apices, the teeth were varnished within 1 mm of the margins and placed in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h at 37 degrees C. After rinsing, the teeth were sectioned longitudinally through the restorations and microleakage was evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Marginal penetration was scored on a 0 to 4 scale, and the data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS: Flowable resin, everStick NET, and Ribbond THM used in combination with flowable resin significantly reduced leakage at occlusal margins in cavities with enamel margins (p < 0.05). When the leakage values on cervical dentin margins were evaluated, there was no statistically significant difference among the tested groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Use of flowable composite alone or in combination with polyethylene or glass fibers reduces occlusal leakage in Class II adhesive cavities with enamel margins.     

Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations

This clinical study evaluated the retention and caries protection of a flowable resin composite (Flow Line) and a flowable compomer (Dyract Flow) used in preventive resin restorations as compared to the conventional preventive resin technique which uses a resin composite (Brilliant) and a sealant (Concise). This study observed 205 permanent molars with small carious cavities less than 1.5 mm in width, which were obtained from 165 children aged 7 to 15 years. Flowable resin composite was used to treat 75 teeth, and 71 teeth were treated with flowable compomer in both cavities and caries-free fissures. For the control group, 59 teeth were treated with resin composite in cavities and sealant in caries-free fissures. The teeth were evaluated at 3, 6, 12, 18 and 24-month intervals. After three months, all 205 treated teeth were completely intact. After six months, 66 of the 71 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 65 of the 70 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 57 of the 58 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 12 months, 60 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 61 of the 67 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 51 of the 55 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 18 months, 53 of the 61 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 54 of the 62 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 47 of the 53 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. After 24 months, 49 of the 58 teeth treated with flowable resin composite and 45 of the 57 teeth treated with flowable compomer were complete, compared to 42 of the 52 teeth treated with the conventional preventive resin technique. There were no statistically significant differences in retention rates among all groups after 3, 6, 12, 18 or 24-months (p>0.05). One tooth treated with flowable resin composite and one tooth treated with flowable compomer developed caries after 18 and 24 months, respectively, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." Five teeth developed caries in the conventional preventive resin group; one after 12 months, two after 18 months and one after 24 months, due to loss at cavities. The final caries occurred after 24 months, resulting from partial loss at "caries-free fissures." The differences in caries development among the three groups were not statistically significant (p>0.05). This study suggested that flowable resin composite and flowable compomer could be used for preventive resin restorations. Meanwhile, a vigilant recall should be followed-up due to the risk of failure for flowable materials in "caries-free" fissures. The repair should be performed immediately, in case the preventive resin restoration develops a fracture or loss.     

流动性充填材料用于预防性树脂充填的实验研究

目的　以传统的复合树脂+窝沟封闭剂的方法为对照组,用体外实验的方法评价流动树脂、流动复合体在预防性树脂充填(preventiveresinrestoration ,PRR)治疗中的情况。方法　患小面积龋被拔除第三恒磨牙9颗,分别用流动树脂(A组)、流动复合体(B组)和传统的复合树脂材料+窝沟封闭剂(C组)的方法进行PRR治疗。5 0 %AgNO3 浸染法检查微渗漏;用SEM观察树脂与牙齿的结合情况。结果　①渗透实验表明各实验组和对照组中均存在一定程度的微渗漏;在微渗漏率方面,A组低于对照的C组(P <0 .0 5 ) ,在树脂渗透率方面A组低于B组和C组(P <0 .0 5 )。②SEM上显示A与B组相似,多数标本树脂与牙齿接触的界面上有结合良好的树脂突样结构,但树脂在和窝沟底部与牙体组织结合较差,特别在极细窝沟处;C组中结合良好的界面所占比例较少,复合树脂勉强压入窝洞后充填不实,在沟底部常见宽大裂纹。结论　在流动复合体和流动树脂在PRR治疗时更适用于沿窝沟走向侵润的窄长形态的窝沟内龋,而传统PRR法更适用于单个龋损直径在1 .5～2mm左右的圆形或卵圆形的小面积龋,流动性充填材料在PRR治疗中可作为传统法的一种补充,最大限度地保留健康牙体组织。     

Evaluation of a self-adhering flowable composite in terms of micro-shear bond strength and microleakage

Abstract

Purpose. The objective of this study was to evaluate dentin bond strength and microleakage of a self-adhering flowable resin with or without adhesive resin. Materials and methods. Dentin pieces were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 10): Group OR (Optibond+Revolution Formula 2 Flow); Group VF (Vertise Flow); and Group OVF (Optibond+Vertise Flow). Then specimens were stressed in shear at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min until the bond failed. Moreover, microleakage was determined by restoring Class V cavities. A statistical analyses was carried out using Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p < 0.05). Results. Group OVF specimens produced the highest mean shear bond strength. In addition, the results showed that the marginal seal in group VF was similar to that in group OR. Conclusion. Self-adhering flowable composite resin combined with adhesive resin provided stronger dentin bond strength and a better marginal seal than when it was used individually. VF is a useful material with an acceptable bond strength and marginal seal.     

The effect of different types of flowable restorative resins on microleakage of Class V cavities

This study evaluated the microleakage of Class V cavities restored with three different types of flowable resin restorative material and compared the effects of using their respective manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand. Class V cavities with the occlusal margin in enamel and the gingival margin in dentin were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 48 non-carious human molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to three equal groups of 16. The first eight teeth in each group were restored with one of the flowable restorative materials (Filtek Flow, Dyract Flow, Admira Flow) using the manufacturer's recommended dentin adhesive (Single Bond, Prime & Bond NT, Admira Bond), and the remaining eight molars were restored using a different brand of dentin adhesive (Gluma Comfort Bond). The samples were thermocycled 200 times (5 degrees C-55 degrees C) with a one-minute dwell time. They were then immersed in a 2% basic fuchsin solution for 24 hours, sectioned and analyzed by stereomicroscopy. There was no statistically significant difference at the occlusal margins for either restoration used with its respective dentin adhesive. At the gingival margins, there was a significant difference among all groups. Flowable ormocer (Admira Flow/Admira Bond) displayed the least leakage at the gingival margins. When these flowable restoratives were used with a different brand of dentin adhesive, statistically significant differences were observed both on enamel and dentin. None of the restoratives tested fully prevented leakage at the gingival margins. No significant differences in microleakage were observed among the restorative materials used with respect to the manufacturer's dentin adhesive or a different brand except for Admira Flow restorative at the gingival margins. The gingival margins had significantly more microleakage than the occlusal margins (p < 0.05) except in the Admira Flow group, where microleakage at the occlusal and gingival margins was almost equal.     

Effect of flowable composite lining on microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the influence of four flowable composite linings on marginal microleakage and internal voids in Class II composite restorations with the margins above the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class II cavities were randomly divided into 8 groups (n = 10). Group 1: One Step Plus/Aelite LS Packable; group 2: One Step Plus/Aelite Flow/Aelite LS Packable; group 3: Comfort Bond/Solitaire 2; group 4: Comfort Bond/Flowline/Solitaire 2; group 5: Solobond M/Grandio; group 6: Solobond M/Grandio Flow/Grandio; group 7: Admira Bond/Admira; Group 8: Admira bond/Admira Flow/Admira. After restoration, all teeth were stored for 24 h, thermocycled (at 5 degrees C to 55 degrees C) 500 times, and soaked in 0.5% basic fuchsin dye for 24 h. After soaking, the teeth were sectioned and observed under a stereomicroscope. Gingival marginal microleakage and internal voids (at the gingival wall interface and in the cervical and the occlusal parts) were recorded. Data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U- and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p < 0.05). RESULTS: Statistical analyses indicated that the use of flowable resin composites provided a reduction in microleakage in groups 6 and 8. Groups 2 and 4 showed fewer voids in the cervical area than without flowable composites. CONCLUSION: It was concluded that none of the materials tested was able to eliminate the marginal microleakage on the cervical wall. Flowable resin composites under nanohybrid (group 6) and ormocer (group 8) composites provided a significantly different reduction in microleakage compared to restorations without flowable liners. Fewer cervia voids were observed in packable composites with flowable liner (groups 2 and 4) than without flowable liner (groups 1 and 3s).