背景:温度变化,化学制剂,树脂复合材料修复体在口腔环境中暴露的刷牙活动会导致表面粗糙度的变化。在这项研究中,目的是通过将它们浸入溶液中,研究来自同一家公司的不同类型的复合材料(可流动或常规)的临床一年表面粗糙度变化,刷牙,和热循环程序来模拟口腔内条件。
方法:将四种不同的树脂复合材料品牌纳入研究,同时使用它们的常规(CharismaSmart,3MFiltek终极通用,Omnichroma,BeautifilII)和可流动树脂复合材料(CharismaFlow,3MFiltek终极可流动,全色性流,BeautifilFlowPlusF00),给予4组,每组2种树脂复合材料。每组/树脂类型制备40个样品,共320个样本。通过机械轮廓仪测量初始表面粗糙度后,将样品分为4个亚组(n=10),并浸入溶液(蒸馏水,茶,咖啡,或葡萄酒)12天。然后使样品经受10,000次刷洗模拟循环和10,000次热老化循环。在程序之后重复表面粗糙度测量。为了进行统计分析,采用三因素方差分析和Tukey检验(p<0.05)。
结果:得出的结论是,复合组和类型在时间t0时对表面粗糙度有影响(p<0.001)。在时间t1,在Beautifil-常规相互作用中获得最高表面粗糙度值。当比较时间t0和t1之间的表面粗糙度值时,在BeautifilII和BeautifilFlowPlusF00中观察到增加,而在其他复合组中观察到减少.
结论:复合组,类型,溶液对树脂复合材料的表面粗糙度有影响。老化程序后,结论是Beautifil组不能保持表面结构,因为它超过了0.2μm的细菌粘附阈值。
BACKGROUND: The temperature changes, chemical agents, and brushing activity that resin composite restorations are exposed to in the oral environment can cause changes in surface roughness. In this study, the aim was to investigate in vitro the clinical one-year surface roughness changes of different types of composites (flowable or conventional) from the same companies by subjecting them to immersion in solutions, brushing, and thermal cycling procedures to simulate intraoral conditions.
METHODS: Four different resin composite brands were included in the study using both their conventional (Charisma Smart, 3M Filtek Ultimate Universal, Omnichroma, Beautifil II) and flowable resin composites (Charisma Flow, 3M Filtek Ultimate Flowable, Omnichroma Flow, Beautifil Flow Plus F00), giving 4 groups with 2 types of resin composite in each. 40 samples were prepared for each group/resin type, for a total of 320 samples. After initial surface roughness measurements by a mechanical profilometer, the samples were divided into 4 subgroups (n = 10) and immersed in solutions (distilled water, tea, coffee, or wine) for 12 days. The samples were then subjected to 10,000 cycles of brushing simulation and 10,000 cycles of thermal aging. Surface roughness measurements were repeated after the procedures. For statistical analysis, the 3-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test were used (p < 0.05).
RESULTS: It was concluded that composite groups and types had an effect on surface roughness at time t0 (p < 0.001). At time t1, the highest surface roughness value was obtained in the Beautifil-conventional interaction. When the surface roughness values between time t0 and t1 were compared, an increase was observed in the Beautifil II and Beautifil Flow Plus F00, while a decrease was observed in the other composite groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Composite groups, types, and solutions had an effect on the surface roughness of resin composites. After aging procedures, it was concluded that the Beautifil group could not maintain the surface structure as it exceeded the threshold value of 0.2 μm for bacterial adhesion.