-
以往对于畸牙、牙缺失等的治疗,多为全冠修复根管治疗,但这种治疗为延长患牙的寿命,后续需要进行牙体修复,且可能会发生根裂的风险[1-2]。随着微创技术的不断发展,以及人们对于美观的要求不断提高,全冠修复根管治疗已经不能满足人们的需求,计算机辅助设计与制作(CAD/CAM)技术可以快速制作出全瓷修复体,且边缘适应性良好,具有快捷、精确、美观等特点,是近年来嵌体修复的主要方法[3-4]。以往研究中,CAD/CAM技术多采用Cerec Blocs瓷块,但最终发现修复体有折裂的风险[5-6]。当前全瓷冠的主要粘接材料为树脂粘接剂,具有美观、粘贴强度良好、与牙组织强度相近等优点,但其成分树脂硬化固定后会出现体积收缩,可能会导致发生边缘微渗漏[7-8]。本研究以IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠进行修复,研究Duo-Link、Variolink N、Kerr NX3三种树脂粘接剂粘接强度及边缘微渗漏情况,现将研究报告结果作一报道。
-
A、B、C 3组抗剪切强度比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);3组间两两比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)(见表 1)。
分组 n 抗剪切强度 F P MS组内 A组 10 12.47±3.46 23.14 < 0.05 5.491 B组 10 17.53±1.47 C组 10 19.39±1.53 表 1 各组抗剪切强度比较(x±s;MPa)
-
3组只出现0~3级边缘微渗漏,4~7级未出现。A组多为1级和2级,B组多为0级和1级,C组多为0级,3组发生边缘微渗漏的等级间差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);组间两两比较,A组与B组、A组与C组、B组与C组发生边缘微渗漏的等级间差异均有统计学意义(P < 0.05)(见表 2)。
分组 n 0级 1级 2级 3级 Hc P A组 42 5(11.90) 22(52.38) 14(33.33) 1(2.38) 21.84 < 0.05 B组 42 19(45.24) 16(38.10) 4(9.52) 3(7.14) C组 42 29(69.05) 7(16.67) 3(7.14) 3(7.14) 表 2 各组边缘微渗漏的等级比较[n;百分率(%)]
不同树脂粘接剂用于IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠粘接强度及边缘微渗漏的研究
Effect of different resin adhesives on the bond strength and edge microleakage of IPS e.max CAD all-ceramic crown
-
摘要:
目的比较采用不同树脂粘接剂对IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠粘接强度及边缘微渗漏的影响。 方法共选取离体前磨牙63颗作为研究对象,常规制作IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠、抗剪切强度样本,按照树脂粘接剂的不同分为A组(21例)、B组(21例)、C组(21例),A组采用Duo-Link树脂粘接剂进行粘接,B组采用Variolink N树脂粘接剂进行粘接,C组采用Kerr NX3树脂粘接剂进行粘接,经过冷热循环、微渗透以及抗剪切强度实验,对3组的抗剪切强度和边缘微渗漏长度进行统计分析。 结果A、B、C 3组抗剪切强度比较差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);3组间两两比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。边缘微渗漏等级中,3组只出现0~3级,A组多为0级,B组多为0级和1级,C组多为1级和2级,3组差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05);其中,A组与B组、A组与C组、B组与C组差异有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。 结论Duo-Link、Variolink N、Kerr NX3三种树脂粘接剂应用于IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠的粘接强度及边缘微渗漏各有差异,其中Kerr NX3树脂粘接剂的抗剪切强度最高,且边缘微渗漏程度最轻,有较好的粘接和良好的边缘。 -
关键词:
- 树脂粘接剂 /
- IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠 /
- 粘接强度 /
- 边缘微渗漏
Abstract:ObjectiveTo compare the effects of different resin binders on the bond strength and edge microleakage of IPS e.max CAD all-ceramic crowns. MethodsA total of 63 premolars were selected as the research objects.The IPS e.max CAD all-ceramic crowns and shear strength samples were routinely prepared, and divided into the A group (21 cases), B group (21 cases) and C group (21 cases) according to the different resin adhesives.The A group was bonded with Duo-Link resin adhesive, the B group was bonded with Variolink N resin adhesive, and the C group was bonded with Kerr NX3 resin binder.The shear strength and edge microleakage length among three groups were compared and analyzed using the hot and cold cycle, micro-osmosis and shear strength tests. ResultsThere was statistical significance in the shear strength among A, B and C groups (P < 0.05).There was no statistical significance in pairwise comparisons between three groups (P>0.05).Among the marginal micro-leakage grades, the 0 to 3 grades in three groups were found, the grade 0 was mostly in A group, the grade 0 and grade 1 were mostly B group, and the grade 1 and grade 2 were mostly in C group.The difference between the three groups was statistically significant (P < 0.05);The differences between A group and B group, A group and C group, and B group and C group were statistically significant (P < 0.05). ConclusionsThe bonding strength and edge microleakage of IPS e.max CAD all-ceramic crowns are different among the application of the Duo-Link, Variolink N and Kerr NX3.The cutting strength and edge micro-leakage of the application of Kerr NX3 are the highest and lightest, respectively, which has good bonding and good edges. -
Key words:
- resin adhesive /
- IPS e.max CAD all-ceramic crown /
- bonding strength /
- edge micro-leakage
-
表 1 各组抗剪切强度比较(x±s;MPa)
分组 n 抗剪切强度 F P MS组内 A组 10 12.47±3.46 23.14 < 0.05 5.491 B组 10 17.53±1.47 C组 10 19.39±1.53 表 2 各组边缘微渗漏的等级比较[n;百分率(%)]
分组 n 0级 1级 2级 3级 Hc P A组 42 5(11.90) 22(52.38) 14(33.33) 1(2.38) 21.84 < 0.05 B组 42 19(45.24) 16(38.10) 4(9.52) 3(7.14) C组 42 29(69.05) 7(16.67) 3(7.14) 3(7.14) -
[1] 杨扬.IPS e.maxCAD瓷高嵌体在修复无髓后牙中的效果评价[J].中国当代医药, 2017, 24(17):105. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-4721.2017.17.033 [2] 闫树伟.试述全冠与高嵌体修复根管治疗后牙牙体缺损的临床疗效[J].世界最新医学信息文摘, 2016, 16(88):170. [3] KOLLMUSSM, KIST S, GOEKE JE, et al.Comparison of chairside and laboratory CAD/CAM to conventional produced all-ceramic crowns regarding morphology, occlusion, and aesthetics[J].Clin Oral Investig, 2016, 20(4):791. [4] 黄方芳, 陈雷, 潘微, 等.CAD/CAM全瓷嵌体与复合树脂嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类洞的临床效果及预后观察[J].广西医科大学学报, 2018, 35(9):96. [5] 余艾晋, 李明哲, 李爱霞.两种瓷高嵌体修复无髓后牙的对比研究[J].西南国防医药, 2016, 26(4):398. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1004-0188.2016.04.018 [6] 王丹, 吴丽娟, 陈娟, 等.椅旁CAD/CAM系统修复牙体缺损的临床效果评价及失败原因分析[J].临床口腔医学杂志, 2018, 34(8):481. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1634.2018.08.010 [7] 朱嘉, 廖岚.混合陶瓷表面不同处理方法对树脂水门汀粘接强度影响研究[J].中国实用口腔科杂志, 2017, 10(5):36. [8] 李秋桐.不同粘接剂对椅旁CAD/CAM全瓷冠微渗漏及粘接强度的影响[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志, 2017, 15(6):355. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-2973.2017.06.009 [9] YIKILGAN Í, AKGULS, ÖZCAN S, et al.An in vitro evaluation of the effects of desensitizing agents on microleakage of Class V cavities[J].J Clin Exper Dent, 2016, 8(1):e55. [10] 徐蕾.不同粘接剂对全瓷冠肩台微渗漏影响的对比研究[J].世界最新医学信息文摘, 2016, 16(17):3. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1671-3141.2016.17.002 [11] 黄宏, 张鹏, 黎日照.3种树脂水门汀对可切削玻璃陶瓷粘接后断裂强度的影响[J].口腔疾病防治, 2016, 24(6):341. [12] 王天, 李桂红.三种粘接剂对IPS e.max CAD全瓷冠微渗漏和适合性的影响[J].北京口腔医学, 2018, 26(3):153. [13] 不同粘接剂对氧化锆全瓷冠粘接强度及边缘微渗漏的影响[J].中华老年口腔医学杂志, 2017, 25(5): 293. [14] 翟家彬, 黄丽娟, 俞青.IPSe.max CAD全瓷冠修复的短期临床评价[J].口腔医学, 2015, 35(9):751. [15] 洪凌斐, 张丽霞, 乐群, 等.2种粘接剂及粘接方法对CAD/CAM全瓷冠抗折强度的影响[J].口腔医学, 2014, 34(2):114.