三种材料修补楔状缺损的临床探讨

为了探讨不同材料对楔状缺损的治疗效果,我们采用光固化复合树脂充填37颗牙齿,银汞合金充填148颗牙齿,玻璃离子充填163颗牙齿,经1—2年观察,光固化复合树脂材料有效率达90％,银汞合金材料     

光固化流动复合树脂修复老年人根面龋的临床观察

目的探讨老年人根面龋充填治疗的合适材料。方法288颗患牙随机分为3组,分别用玻璃离子水门汀、光固化流动复合树脂和银汞合金充填修复,随访2年。结果3种材料修复成功率分别为81.2%、92.7%、75.0%。经统计学分析,光固化流动复合树脂组优于玻璃离子组,玻璃离子组优于银汞合金组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论光固化流动复合树脂是修复根面龋较为合适的材料,其疗效优于银汞合金与玻璃离子。     

玻璃离子水门汀修复后牙缺损的临床应用

牙齿的填充材料有多种 ,一直沿用至今的银汞合金充填的颜色较差 ,且易出现边缘泄漏 ,并有一定的毒性 ,易造成环境污染 ,国外一些发达国家已禁止使用 ,因此 ,人们一直在寻找一种更为理想的充填材料。复合树脂、玻璃离子水门汀等是近年来临床应用较多的充填材料。而玻璃离子水门汀由于具有色泽好、耐磨损且操作简便、无需酸蚀等特点 ,而优于复合树脂 ,目前正被广泛应用于临床治疗。1　材料与方法1 1　临床资料从 1994年起我科采用上海青浦齿科材料厂生产的玻璃离子水门汀 (由轻工业部玻璃搪瓷工业科学研究所、上海市轻工业研究所、上海华东医…     

比较6种口腔材料对体外生物膜形成的影响

目的比较体外混合菌在不同充填材料表面形成早期生物膜的能力,探讨生物膜状态下不同充填材料细菌形成的差异。方法用6种不同修复材料按临床比例制成试件各3件,将各试件放入国际标准菌株牙龈卟啉单胞菌、具核梭杆菌、伴放线放线杆菌、粘性放线菌、血链球菌、变形链球菌混合培养24h,使之在试件表面形成生物膜。在激光共聚焦扫描显微镜(LCSM)下观察生物膜厚度和平均荧光强度,比较不同充填材料表面生物膜细菌形成的差异。结果形成的生物膜平均厚度依次为聚羧酸锌水门汀>磷酸锌水门汀>玻璃离子体水门汀>复合树脂>银汞合金>富士Ⅱ型玻璃离子水门汀。组间比较发现:四种充填材料生物膜厚度无统计学的差异,富士Ⅱ型玻璃离子水门汀、银汞合金的生物膜厚度与两种垫底材料之间都有显著性差异,复合树脂、玻璃离子体水门汀、磷酸锌水门汀的生物膜厚度与聚羧酸锌水门汀有显著性差异。结论材料表面形成的不同生物膜厚度提示:富士Ⅱ型玻璃离子水门汀、银汞合金具有较强的抑制生物膜形成的能力。     

三种充填材料修复磨牙大面积缺损221例分析

目的:观察三种充填材料修复磨牙大面积缺损的临床疗效。方法:通过对254个磨牙大面积缺损的患牙进行根管治疗后置根管桩与自攻螺纹钉行支架固位,分别用登士柏TPH复合树脂、银汞合金、玻璃离子水门汀充填,1年后复查。结果:1年后复查,TPH修复成功率97.82%,银汞合金修复成功率74.69%,玻璃离子水门汀修复成功率68.85%。结论:TPH树脂联合根管桩钉修复磨牙大面积缺损临床疗效明显优于银汞合金与玻璃离子水门汀。     

三种材料修复乳牙龋疗效比较

本文使用银汞合金、光固化复合树脂、玻璃离子水门汀分别对400名3-6岁儿童1193个牙齿进行充填，追踪1-2年，效果良好，报道如下。     

GCFujiⅡ玻璃离子充填材料的电镜观察和临床应用

长期以来,龋齿窝洞的充填一直采用银汞合金材料,但这种材料的缺点是色泽不美观以及汞蒸汽对环境的污染。随着口腔医学的发展,近年来新型牙科充填材料不断出现,其中玻璃离子水门汀以其色泽美观、粘结性强、对牙髓刺激性小等优点,作为前牙的充填材料而广泛应用于临床。本文运用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)对GC FujiⅡ玻璃离子水门汀(以下简称GIC)及银汞合金与牙齿的密合度进行观察、研究,从充填密合度的角度分析两种材料的性能,并通过临床应用进一步评价     

老年根龋保存治疗临床效果报告

目的:观察玻璃离子水门汀和光固化复合树脂充填治疗老年根龋的临床效果.方法:对65岁以上老年人284颗根龋牙,按就诊顺序半随机分成两组,分别接受两种材料充填治疗.结果:1年时,玻璃离子水门汀、光固化复合树脂充填总有效率分别为91.39%、77.27%、统计分析,相差有显著性(P＜0.05).结论:玻璃离子水门汀与光固化复合树脂修复根龋临床效果比较,玻璃离子水门汀疗效优于光固化复合树脂.     

不同充填材料对牙体应力分布的影响

目的研究3种不同材料进行窝洞充填后牙体应力分布情况,为临床充填材料的选择提供理论依据。方法将离体上颌第二磨牙经螺旋CT扫描,使实体结构图象数字化处理,建立其有限元模型。在此模型上对银汞合金、复合树脂及玻璃离子水门汀修复前后的牙体应力分布情况进行数值分析。结果在同样载荷作用下,3种材料修复后牙体的应力云图分布形态和极值基本相同,差异无显著性,但与健康牙比较,最大应力值均降低24.14%。结论银汞合金、复合树脂及玻璃离子水门汀3种不同的充填材料对牙体修复后承载能力的影响基本相同。     

几种新型牙科充填材料边缘微漏的实验研究

选择临床常用的银汞合金，国产ＣＯ－１玻璃离子粘固剂以及新研制的新型银－稀土汞齐合金、无汞银合金、银玻璃离子粘固剂、Ｌ－型玻璃离子粘固剂作充填材料，采用染料逆扩散法测定牙齿浸出液中伊红含量，观察充填材料边缘微漏情况。结果表明，无汞银合金边缘微漏低于银汞合金，新型银－稀土汞齐合金较银汞合金大，银玻璃离子粘固剂和国产ＣＯ－１玻璃离子粘固剂的微漏无区别，Ｌ－型玻璃离子粘固剂的微漏高于银玻璃离子粘固剂和国产     

3种充填材料治疗老年根面龋的临床研究

目的 选择老年根面龋充填治疗的理想材料。方法 269颗患牙分成3组,分别用Dyract复合体、光固化复合树脂和玻璃离子水门汀(FujiⅡ)充填治疗,随访18～24个月。结果 Dyract复合体成功率95.6％,明显高于光固化复合树脂的67.1％(P<0.05),而与玻璃离子水门汀的成功率89.52％之间无显著性差异(P>0.05).结论Dyract复合体是治疗老年根面龋的较理想材料。     

Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite.

PURPOSE: Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets is one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment. Glass ionomer cements have been shown to decrease enamel demineralization adjacent to brackets and bands but do not exhibit bond strengths comparable to resin composites. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a fluoride-releasing resin composite versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets. METHODS: Forty-five teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups of 15 teeth. Fifteen were bonded with Concise (3M), a non-fluoride-releasing resin composite (control); 15 teeth were bonded with Light Bond (Reliance), a fluoride-releasing resin composite; and 15 teeth were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corporation), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The teeth were placed in an artificial caries solution to create lesions. Following sectioning of the teeth in a buccolingual direction, polarized light microscopy was utilized to evaluate enamel demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket. The area of the lesion was measured 100 microns from the orthodontic bracket and bonding agent. RESULTS: MANOVA (P < .0001) and Duncan's test (P < .05) indicated the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) and the fluoride-releasing resin composite (Light Bond) had significantly less adjacent enamel demineralization than the non-fluoride-releasing resin composite control. However, there was no significant difference between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the fluoride-releasing resin composite. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that Fuji Ortho LC and Light Bond exhibit significant inhibition of adjacent demineralization compared to the non-fluoride-releasing control.     

A comparative study of the bond strengths of amalgam and alloy–glass ionomer cores

The purpose of this study was to compare the bond strengths of dental amalgam cores and dental alloy-glass ionomer cores that were luted to cast gold crowns with glass ionomer cement. Seventy-two human extracted molars were sectioned horizontally and four regular thread mate system pins were inserted into a flat pulpal floor. The teeth were restored with amalgam or alloy-glass ionomer admixture and prepared for crown preparations. Castings were produced with type III gold and cemented to the cores with Fuji type I glass ionomer cement. Thirty-six of the specimens were subjected to thermal fatigue by cycling between 4 and 50 degrees C for periods of 1, 5 and 10 weeks. The remainder of the specimens were retained in deionized water at 37 degrees C. Bond strengths of the cores, in tension, were measured with a universal testing machine. The alloy-glass ionomer cores exhibited higher bond strengths than the amalgam cores for virtually all time periods, particularly the thermocycled samples. The alloy-glass ionomer cores exclusively displayed core fractures and pin/tooth insufficiencies while the amalgam cores failed because of a deterioration of the glass ionomer luting cement.     

A comparison of the shear bond strengths of two glass ionomer cements

The objective of this study was to determine the in vitro shear bond strength (in megapascals) and location of bond failure with two light-cured glass ionomer resin systems. One system was a hybrid glass ionomer cement with resin (GC Orthodontics, Aslip, Ill), and the other system a glass-filled resin system (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca, Ill). These systems, Fuji Ortho LC (GC Orthodontics) and Ultra Band Lok^{^} (Reliance), respectively, were compared to a light-cured composite resin. Maxillary premolar brackets (n = 200) were bonded to the facial surface of human premolar teeth. The two glass ionomer resin systems were each evaluated by two protocols, one according to the manufacturers’ direction plus a variation of their respective technique. The five distinct groups (n = 40) were stored in 37°C distilled water for 30 days and subjected to thermocycling before shear bond strength testing. The findings indicated that large variations existed between the bond strengths of the materials tested. The laboratory shear bond strength of the glass-filled resin glass ionomer cement (Reliance), whether tested in a dry or moist field, was similar to the composite control with all of the previous materials being significantly (P < .01) higher than both the hybrid glass ionomer cement groups (Fuji Ortho LC). However, the hybrid glass ionomer cement with enamel conditioner demonstrated a clinically acceptable mean megapascal value. The Adhesive Remnant Index values ranged from 0.53 to 1.62. The hybrid glass ionomer cement without enamel conditioning recorded the lowest mean adhesive remnant index score and the lowest mean megapascal score. Although both products are glass ionomer resin systems, their individual chemistries vary; this affects their clinical performance. Clinically, it may be suggested that glass ionomers used in a dry field may be beneficial for orthodontic bonding, and that glass ionomer resin systems used in a moist environment need an enamel conditioner. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:125-32.)     

Evaluation of a new 2-paste glass ionomer cement

A new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, Fuji Ortho Band Paste Pak (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), for the placement of orthodontic bands, has been developed for easier handling. The aim of this study was to compare the fluoride release and uptake characteristics of this cement with that of 3 others commonly used to cement orthodontic bands: a conventional resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement, a polyacid-modified composite resin, and a conventional glass ionomer cement. Fluoride release was measured during a 28-day period. After the measurement on day 28, experimental samples were exposed to 1000 ppm sodium fluoride solution for 5 minutes, and fluoride release was then measured for 7 days. Initially, the new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement released the greatest amount of fluoride; the polyacid-modified composite resin released the least initially, and it continued to show the lowest values throughout the study. The fluoride uptake and release values of the new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement were statistically significantly higher than those of the conventional resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement or the conventional glass ionomer cement. The new 2-paste resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement might be a good alternative to conventional products for cementing orthodontic bands.     

树脂修饰化玻璃离子托槽粘结剂粘结强度的体外研究

目的：评估一种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子托槽粘结剂在牙面不同处理方式和环境下的两次粘结后的剪切强度情况。方法：将新近拔除的105颗上颌第一前磨牙随机均分成7组,按照说明书的要求完成托槽的粘结。对照组牙面用37%的磷酸处理后,用光固化复合树脂粘结剂（3M,Transbond XT）粘结。其它6组牙面分别在37%的磷酸、GC处理剂（GC Self-Conditioner）、和不做任何处理的条件下,分别在干燥和湿润的环境下用树脂修饰化的玻璃离子（RMGIC;Fuji ORTHO LC,GC Corporation,Tokyo,Japan）粘结,所有牙齿均选用同种托槽。托槽粘结24 h后,在万能测力机下以1 mm/min的速度卸载,并记录下数值。除去牙面和托槽底面多余粘结剂后,重复上述过程。每次卸载后检查牙釉质损坏情况。结果：对照组两次剪切强度有较小的差异,其它GC玻璃离子粘结剂组两次剪切强度没有统计学意义。GC粘结剂不做任何处理组在干燥和湿润的环境下其剪切强度存在明显的差异。干燥环境下,37%的磷酸和GC处理剂处理后,GC粘结剂组两次卸载后的牙釉质均出现不同程度的釉裂或釉质脱落。结论：这种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子粘结剂可以在多种条件下用于托槽的粘结。     

The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow) versus an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) on microleakage at the cavosurface margin of the proximal box of Class II restorations in permanent teeth in-vitro. Thirty caries and restoration-free human bicuspids were prepared with mesial and distal slot preparations and were filled either with a bonding agent (Optibond) plus a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), Group I; bonding agent (Optibond) plus a flowable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), Group II; or a flowable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with no bonding agent, Group III. All specimens were then immersed in a 2% solution of basic fuschin dye for 24 hours to allow for dye penetration into possible existing gaps. These teeth were then carefully sectioned mesially/distally into two pieces using an Isomet saw. The teeth were then studied under a binocular microscope to measure depths of dye penetrations as an indication of marginal microleakage at the gingival cavosurface margin and scored as follows: 0 = no dye penetration, 1 = dye penetration into enamel only, 2 = dye penetration into enamel and dentin, 3 = dye penetration into the pulp. The specimens were also evaluated using a SEM. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences between Groups I (Tetric Flow) and (Fuji II LC plus bonding agent), II in favor of Group I; between Groups I and (Fuji II LC with no bonding agent), III in favor of Group I; as well as Groups II and III in favor of Group II (Fuji II LC plus bonding agent). Group I (bonding agent plus flowable composite resin) showed significantly less microleakage. Group II (bonding agent plus flowable glass ionomer) demonstrated a bond that existed between the bonding agent and the glass ionomer but microleakage within microgaps of the glass ionomer itself Group III (flowable glass ionomer plus no bonding agent) demonstrated significant microleakage between the glass ionomer and tooth structure, microgaps within the glass ionomer, and lack of retention of the restoration. It appears that the use of a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow) plus a bonding agent (Optibond) in the proximal box of a Class II restoration in permanent teeth will significantly reduce the microleakage at the cavosurface margin when compared with an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with or without a bonding agent (Optibond).     

The sealing ability of materials used as retrograde root fillings in endodontic surgery

The sealing ability of retrograde root fillings of amalgam plus cavity varnish, EBA cement, glass ionomer cement, light-cured composite resin, dentine bonding agent, and light-cured composite resin plus dentine bonding agent were compared with laterally condensed conventional root fillings. A dye penetration technique was used to assess microleakage and it was concluded that none of the materials produced a perfect seal but that glass ionomer cement, light-cured composite resin, light-cured composite resin plus dentine bonding agent and dentine bonding agent alone produced better seals than conventional laterally condensed gutta-percha, amalgam plus cavity varnish and EBA cement.     

粘接界面处理对玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂粘接强度的影响

目的 比较4种粘接剂对2种不同类型玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂界面间粘接强度的影响.方法 选取传统型高强度玻璃离子FujiⅨ(F9)和树脂改良型玻璃离子FujiⅡLC(F2LC)为研究对象,将100个样本随机分为10组,每组10个样本,在样本中央制备窝洞后,随机选取5组样本,窝洞内置入F9,另外5组置入F2LC.样本界面分别采取不处理和4种不同类型的粘接剂,Clearfil SE Bond(SEB)、Clearfil S3 Bond(S3B)、Optibond Versa(OBV)及Single Bond 2(SB2)处理后,分别测定各组样本的剪切粘接强度.结果 OBV处理组的F9样本组获得最大的剪切粘结强度,未进行界面处理的F9样本组剪切粘结强度最小,其差异具有显著统计学意义.使用粘接剂处理后各组的粘接强度均显著增高.结论 粘接剂处理样本界面后显著提高玻璃离子与复合树脂间的粘接强度.自酸蚀粘接剂OBV使玻璃离子与复合树脂界面获得最大的粘接强度.     

Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: Bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva

The purposes of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a standard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto: a) dry teeth and b) teeth soaked with saliva. The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design. In that, both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient. Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A (11 patients) and group B (27 patients). In group A, the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated: 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement (GC Industrial Co., Tokyo, Japan) onto dry teeth, and 110 bonded with System 1+ composite resin (Ormco Corp., Glendora, CA). In group B, the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated: 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva, and 270 bonded with System 1+. In group A, GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate (34.5%) significantly higher (p < 0.05) than System 1+ (9%) when applied onto completely dry teeth. Conversely, in group B, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva. It was concluded, therefore, that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinically acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth, but not when used on dry enamel. Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface, without causing any enamel damage.