首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry >Comparison of six different methods of cleaning and preparing occlusal fissure surface before placement of pit and fissure sealant: An in vitro study
【24h】

Comparison of six different methods of cleaning and preparing occlusal fissure surface before placement of pit and fissure sealant: An in vitro study

机译:比较六种不同方法在放置凹坑和裂隙密封剂之前清洁和准备咬合裂隙表面的体外研究

获取原文
       

摘要

Aim & Objectives : The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the microleakage of pit and fissure sealants after using six different preparation techniques: (a) brush, (b) pumice slurry application, (c) bur, (d) air polishing, (e) air abrasion, and (f) longer etching time. Material & Method : The study was conducted on 60 caries-free first premolars extracted for orthodontic purpose. These teeth were randomly assigned to six groups of 10 teeth each. Teeth were prepared using one of six occlusal surface treatments prior to placement of Clinpro" 3M ESPE light-cured sealant. The teeth were thermocycled for 500 cycles and stored in 0.9% normal saline. Teeth were sealed apically and coated with nail varnish 1 mm from the margin and stained in 1% methylene blue for 24 hours. Each tooth was divided buccolingually parallel to the long axis of the tooth, yielding two sections per tooth for analysis. The surfaces were scored from 0 to 2 for the extent of microleakage. Statistical Analysis : Results obtained for microleakage were analyzed by using t-tests at sectional level and chi-square test and analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the group level. Results : The results of round bur group were significantly superior when compared to all other groups. The application of air polishing and air abrasion showed better results than pumice slurry, bristle brush, and longer etching time. Round bur group was the most successful cleaning and preparing technique. Air polishing and air abrasion produced significantly less microleakage than traditional pumice slurry, bristle brush, and longer etching time.
机译:目的与目的:这项体外研究的目的是评估和比较使用六种不同的制备技术后凹坑和裂缝密封剂的微渗漏:(a)刷,(b)浮石浆料,(c)bur,(d)空气抛光,(e)空气磨蚀和(f)更长的蚀刻时间。材料与方法:该研究是针对正畸目的提取的60个无龋齿的第一前磨牙进行的。这些牙齿被随机分为六组,每组十颗。在放置Clinpro“ 3M ESPE光固化密封剂之前,使用六种咬合表面处理方法中的一种来制备牙齿。将牙齿热循环500次并在0.9%的生理盐水中存储。将牙齿顶端密封并在距牙齿1毫米处涂上指甲油边缘切开并在1%亚甲蓝中染色24小时,每颗牙齿平行于牙齿的长轴按颊齿分开,每颗牙齿分成两部分进行分析,表面的微渗漏程度从0到2分。分析:通过截面级别的t检验和卡方检验以及组水平的方差分析(ANOVA)分析获得的微渗漏结果结果:与其他所有组相比,圆形钻头组的结果明显更好。空气抛光和空气磨蚀的应用效果比浮石浆,硬毛刷更好,并且蚀刻时间更长,而圆形钻头组是最成功的清洁和制备工艺。中国风与传统的浮石浆料,硬毛刷相比,空气抛光和空气磨蚀产生的微泄漏明显更少,并且蚀刻时间更长。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号