首页> 外文期刊>Quintessence international >Optical integration and fluorescence: a comparison among restorative materials with spectrophotometric analysis.
【24h】

Optical integration and fluorescence: a comparison among restorative materials with spectrophotometric analysis.

机译:光学积分和荧光:可恢复材料与分光光度分析的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the optical integration and fluorescence of three contemporary restorative materials used for incisoproximal restorations. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A microfilled hybrid composite (Amaris, VOCO; MHC), a nanofilled hybrid composite (Grandio, VOCO; NHC), and an experimental ormocer (VOCO; ORM) were used to consecutively restore 10 extracted incisors with incisoproximal restorations using the natural layering concept, mimicking the natural anatomy of the tooth. Before and after placement of each restoration, the teeth were photographed under standardized conditions (direct, indirect, and fluorescent light), and spectrophotometric measurements (SpectroShade, Handy Dental Type 713000, MHT) were made using a black-and-white background. Between measurements, the teeth were allowed to rehydrate for 2 weeks. Ten independent evaluators scored each light condition using an optical integration score on a scale from 0 to 10 (0 = worst optical integration, restoration can be easily distinguished from remaining tissue; 10 = optimal optical integration). Differences in L*a*b and DE values and optical integration scores were statistically analyzed using ANOVA. RESULTS: MHC obtained the highest optical integration and fluorescence scores (P < .01), followed by NHC, although there were no statistically significant differences found among DE of the restorative materials. ORM achieved the worst optical integration and fluorescence. CONCLUSION: The microfilled hybrid composite obtained the highest optical integration scores (P < .01), followed by the nanofilled hybrid composite. The experimental ormocer showed the least favorable optical behavior. Spectrophotometric measurements showed no statistically significant differences among all three restorative materials.
机译:目的:评估三种用于近切近端修复的当代修复材料的光学积分和荧光。方法和材料:使用微填充杂合复合材料(Amaris,VOCO; MHC),纳米填充杂合复合材料(Grandio,VOCO; NHC)和实验性放血药(VOCO; ORM)来连续修复10颗切牙,并使用切牙近端修复体自然分层概念,模仿牙齿的自然解剖结构。在放置每个修复体之前和之后,在标准化条件下(直接,间接和荧光灯)对牙齿拍照,并使用黑白背景进行分光光度测量(SpectroShade,Handy Dental Type 713000,MHT)。在两次测量之间,让牙齿补水2周。十位独立评估人员使用光学积分评分(范围为0到10)为每种光照条件评分(0 =最差的光学积分,可以很容易地将其与其余组织区分开; 10 =最佳光学积分)。使用ANOVA统计分析L * a * b和DE值以及光学积分的差异。结果:MHC获得最高的光学积分和荧光评分(P <.01),其次是NHC,尽管在修复材料的DE之间没有统计学上的显着差异。 ORM实现了最差的光学积分和荧光。结论:微填充混合复合材料获得最高的光学积分分数(P <.01),其次是纳米填充混合复合材料。实验性癌显示出最不利的光学行为。分光光度法测量结果表明,所有三种修复材料之间均无统计学差异。

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