PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
This study aimed to assess the ability of modern resin-based \"bioactive\" materials (RBMs) to induce dentine remineralisation via mineral deposition and compare the results to those obtained with calcium silicate cements (CSMs). The following materials were employed for restoration of dentine cavities: CSMs: ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Sirona), MTA Angelus (Angelus), Biodentine (Septodont), and TheraCal LC (Bisco); RBMs: ACTIVA BioACTIVE Base/Liner (Pulpdent), ACTIVA Presto (Pulpdent), and Predicta Bioactive Bulk (Parkell). The evaluation of the mineral deposition was performed through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) on the material and dentine surfaces, as well as at the dentine-material interface after immersion in simulated body fluid. Additionally, the Ca/P ratios were also calculated in all the tested groups. The specimens were analysed after setting (baseline) and at 24 h, 7, 14, and 28 days. ProRoot MTA, MTA Angelus, Biodentine, and TheraCal LC showed significant surface precipitation, which filled the gap between the material and the dentine. Conversely, the three RBMs showed only a slight ability to induce mineral precipitation, although none of them was able to remineralise the dentine-material interface. In conclusion, in terms of mineral precipitation, modern \"bioactive\" RBMs are not as effective as CSMs in inducing dentine remineralisation; these latter represent the only option to induce a possible reparative process at the dentin-material interface.
摘要：
本研究旨在评估现代树脂基“生物活性”材料（RBM）通过矿物质沉积诱导牙本质再矿化的能力，并将结果与硅酸钙水泥（CSM）获得的结果进行比较。以下材料用于修复牙本质腔：CSM：ProRootMTA（DentsplySirona），MTAAngelus(Angelus),Biodentine(Septodont),和TheraCalLC（Bisco）；RBM：ACTIVA生物活性基料/内衬（纸浆），ACTIVAPresto(牙髓),和Predicta生物活性散装（Parkell）。通过扫描电子显微镜（SEM）和能量色散X射线光谱（EDX）对材料和牙本质表面进行矿物沉积的评估，以及浸入模拟体液后的牙本质材料界面。此外,还计算了所有测试组的Ca/P比。在设置（基线）和24小时后分析样本，7、14和28天。ProRootMTA,MTAAngelus,Biodentine,和TheraCalLC显示显著的表面沉淀，填补了材料和牙本质之间的空白。相反，三个RBM仅显示出轻微的诱导矿物沉淀的能力，尽管他们都无法使牙本质材料界面重新矿化。总之,在矿物沉淀方面，现代“生物活性”RBM在诱导牙本质再矿化方面不如CSM有效；后者是在牙本质材料界面诱导可能的修复过程的唯一选择。
