背景:已经引入了许多整体式加工材料,并为嵌体修复体提供了合适的机械和物理性能。然而,使用这些材料评估边际适应性的研究存在不足。
目的:本研究旨在比较3种不同CAD-CAM材料制作嵌体修复体对热循环前后边缘间隙的影响。
方法:根据使用的材料,将60颗人类前磨牙随机分为3组(n=20):(e。最大CAD,IvoclarAG,Schaan,列支敦士登),(HC,Shofu,Koyoto,日本)和(辉煌的克里奥斯,Coltene,Altstätten,瑞士)(n=20)。扫描电子显微镜(SEM)(JSM-6510lv,JEOL,东京,日本)用于测量嵌体修复体胶结后的边缘间隙。放大倍数适应于250x。热循环后,用SEM重新评估了边缘间隙。浴的温度为5°C,并且施加55°C总共5000个循环。通过使用ANCOVA对所有数据进行统计学分析,以证明三个独立(无关)组的热循环后的间隙测量之间是否存在任何统计学上的显着差异。使用Bonferroni调节器进行事后分析(α=0.05)。
结果:EX组(110.8μm)的干预后边缘间隙明显低于SF组(112.5μm)(平均差=-1.768,P=.007)和BR组(113μm)(平均差=-2.272,P=.001),然而,。比较SF和BR组,差异无统计学意义(平均差=-0.5,P=0.770)。
结论:热循环广泛影响复合修复体和树脂改性陶瓷的边缘间隙。然而,它对玻璃陶瓷边缘适应的影响很小。
结论:CAD-CAM嵌体的边缘间隙因所用材料而异(陶瓷基,组合,或树脂基)。热循环对二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷嵌体的边际适应性影响较小,它极大地影响了树脂改性陶瓷和复合材料基嵌体的边缘。使用二硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷可能会提高嵌体修复牙齿的临床寿命。
Many monolithic machined materials have been introduced and provided a suitable mechanical and physical properties for inlay restorations. However, there is shortage in the studies evaluating the marginal adaptation using these materials.
This
study aimed to compare the effect of fabricating inlay restorations from 3 different CAD-CAM materials on marginal gaps before and after thermocycling.
Sixty human premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 20) according to the material used: (e.max CAD, Ivoclar AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), (HC, Shofu, Koyoto, Japan) and (Brilliant Crios, Coltene, Altstätten, Switzerland) (n = 20). A scanning electron microscope (SEM) (JSM- 6510 lv, JEOL, Tokyo, JAPAN) was used to for measuring the marginal gaps after
cementation of inlay restorations. The magnification was adapted to 250x. Marginal gaps were revaluated with SEM after thermocycling. The temperatures of baths were 5 and 55 °C was applied for a total of 5000 cycles. All data were statistically analyzed by using ANCOVA to demonstrate if there were any statistically significant differences between the gap measures after thermocycling of the three independent (unrelated) groups. A Bonferroni adjustmen was used to perform post hoc analysis (α = 0.05).
Post-intervention marginal gap was statistically significantly lower in group EX (110.8 μm) which was statistically significant compared with group SF (112.5 μm) (mean difference=-1.768, P = .007) and group BR (113 μm) (mean difference=-2.272, P = .001), however, in. comparing SF and BR groups, there was no significant difference (mean difference=-0.5, P = .770).
Thermocycling affected the marginal gaps of composite based restoration and resin-modified ceramics widely. However, it had a very small effect on glass ceramics marginal adaptation.
The marginal gaps of CAD-CAM inlays varied according to material used (ceramic based, combination, or resin based). Thermocycling has a minor effect on the marginal adaptation of lithium disilicate glass-ceramic inlays, where it affected the margin of resin-modified ceramic and composite based inlays greatly. Using lithium disilicate glass-ceramic might improve the clinical longevity of inlay restored teeth.