...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Endodontics: Official Journal of American Association of Endodontists >Shear Bond Comparison between 4 Bioceramic Materials and Dual-cure Composite Resin
【24h】

Shear Bond Comparison between 4 Bioceramic Materials and Dual-cure Composite Resin

机译:4个生物陶瓷材料和双固化复合树脂之间的剪切键比较

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Introduction: Bioceramic materials have shown biologic and physical properties favorable for regenerative treatment. A key to treatment success is an adequate restoration to prevent microleakage; however, research is limited regarding the bond strength between restorative and bioceramic materials used in regenerative procedures. This study compared the bond strength between 4 bioceramic materials and a dual-cure composite resin. Methods: Eighty wells in Teflon (ePlastics, San Diego, CA) blocks were filled with bioceramic materials representing 4 groups: White ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and NeoMTA (Avalon Biomed Inc, Houston, TX). After allowing samples to set according to the manufacturers' instructions, exposed surfaces of the bioceramic materials were prepared using ClearFil SE Bond (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY) followed by restoration with ClearFil DC Core Plus (Kuraray America, Inc.). To test shear bond strength, each block was secured in a universal testing machine, and the crosshead was advanced at 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Newton peak force was recorded and megapascals calculated followed by data comparison. Results: The mean shear bond strengths between ClearFil DC Core Plus and the bioceramic materials were as follows: White ProRoot MTA, 7.96 MPa; Biodentine, 9.18 MPa; EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty, 4.47 MPa; and NeoMTA, 5.72 MPa. White ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were statistically similar, with a higher stress bond strength than NeoMTA, which had a statistically greater bond strength than EndoSequence Root Repair Material. All these values were lower than typical bond strengths shown for dentin-composite resin bonding. Conclusions: The choice of which bioceramic material to use in regenerative procedures should be based on factors other than the bond between that material and the overlying coronal resin restoration.
机译:介绍:生物陶瓷材料表明了对再生治疗有利的生物学和物理性质。治疗成功的关键是适当的恢复,以防止微渗透;然而,研究是有限的关于再生程序使用的修复和生物陶瓷材料之间的粘合强度。该研究比较了4个生物陶瓷材料和双固化复合树脂之间的粘合强度。方法:在Teflon(ePlastics,San Diego,Ca)块中八十孔填充了代表4组的生物陶瓷材料:白色proroot矿物三氧化物骨料(MTA)(杜莎)(Lulsa牙科,牙齿,OK),生物entine(Seedodont,Sainton,Sainton,Sainton,Saint Maur des Fosses ,法国),内托基根修补材料快速设定腻子(布鲁塞尔美国,萨凡纳,GA)和Neomta(Avalon Biomed Inc,Houston,TX)。在允许根据制造商的说明书设置样品后,使用ClearFil Se Bond(Kuraray America,Inc.,Ny)使用ClearFil DC Core Plus进行恢复(Kuraray America,Inc。)制备生物陶瓷材料的暴露表面)。为了测试剪切粘合强度,将每个块固定在通用试验机中,并且十字头在0.5毫米/分钟之前前进,直至断裂。记录牛顿峰值力量,并计算兆卡匹斯斯卡,然后进行数据比较。结果:ClearFil DC Core Plus和Bioceramic材料之间的平均剪切粘合强度如下:白色Proroot MTA,7.96MPa;生物碘丁,9.18 MPa;结核根修复材料快速设定腻子,4.47 MPa;和Neomta,5.72 MPa。白色Proroot MTA和生物烯型在统计上类似,具有比Neomta更高的应力键合强度,其具有比核状根修复材料的统计学上更大的粘合强度。所有这些值均低于牙本质复合树脂粘合所示的典型粘合强度。结论:在再生程序中使用哪种生物陶瓷材料的选择应基于该材料与覆盖冠状树脂恢复之间的粘合以外的因素。

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