Evaluation of internal adaptation in ceramic and composite resin inlays by silicon replica technique

This study was aimed at investigating the internal adaptation of a ceramic (Ceramco II) and two composite resin inlay materials (SureFil and 3M Filtek Z 250) using silicon replica technique as an indicator. Forty-five standard mesial-occlusal-distal (MOD) cavities were prepared into brass moulds by using computer numerically controlled system. Inlays were prepared according to manufacturers' instructions with indirect methods. Replicas of the prepared cavities and inlays were produced with a polyvinyl siloxane material (Elite H-D). The spaces between inlays and cavities were filled by different coloured light-body polyvinyl siloxane material. Two parallel slices (mesio-distally) were obtained from the replicas with a sharp blade. Different coloured polyvinyl siloxane material thickness between cavity and inlay was measured at seven points (mesial, occlusal and distal). The data were evaluated with anova and Tukey's honestly significantly different (HSD) statistical tests. In the SureFil and Ceramco II groups, the sizes of the contraction gaps at mesial and distal gingival floors were greater than that of the occlusal marginal walls. In comparison of gap formation at occlusal regions, while the 3M composite group showed highest gap values (204.33 +/- 75.45 microm), the Ceramco II group revealed the lowest (141.17 +/- 23.66 microm) (P < 0.05). At the gingival floors, gap formation of Ceramco II group was the highest (227.08 +/- 51.95 microm). Neither the 3M Filtek Z250 nor SureFil group showed any statistical difference between gap values of their self-occlusal and gingival floors (P > 0.05). In conclusion, our results showed that ceramic inlays did not confer any big advantage for internal adaptation over the composite inlays.     

复合树脂嵌体技术的研究进展

复合树脂嵌体技术是一种将复合树脂制备成与窝洞相适应的固体团块,在体外经二期固化后黏固于窝洞中的一种牙体修复技术.该技术能提高充填体的物理性能、减轻充填体对牙髓的刺激、减小边缘微渗漏,故应用日益广泛.本文就复合树脂嵌体技术的原理、优点、临床应用作一综述.     

不同材料嵌体修复后牙体组织应力分析

目的:研究3种材料嵌体在垂直载荷下牙体组织的应力分布。方法:建立下颌第一磨牙嵌体修复后颊舌向模式图。分别对3种材料及其不同厚度嵌体底部最大主应力进行计算。结果:在同样载荷下,镍铬合金的应力最大、烤瓷次之、复合树脂最小,且应力均与嵌体的厚度成正比。结论:适当减小镍铬合金和烤瓷嵌体的厚度对预防牙体折裂有一定的作用。     

儿童后牙牙体大面积缺损2种修复治疗的临床研究

目的：探讨儿童后牙牙体大面积缺损不同修复治疗的临床效果。方法：临床选择98例患儿后牙大面积缺损112颗患牙，随机分成实验组和对照组，作铸瓷嵌体修复或光固化复合树脂充填修复，并经1～2年临床疗效的追踪观察。结果：用铸瓷嵌体修复的病例成功率为80．5％，而采用树脂充填修复的成功率为56.8％。结论：在儿童大面积牙体缺损中，铸瓷嵌体修复技术有一定的临床应用价值可以推广，但制作中应注意适应证的选择，掌握操作要点，以提高成功率。     

复合树脂嵌体经离体光照固化后修复牙体严重缺损的临床研究

目的：探讨一种适宜的修复牙体严重缺损的方法。方法:复合树脂嵌体经离体光固化后再黏结修复，并与其它传统修复方法比较。结果：1－1．5年临床效果显示：离体光照优于在体光照、银汞合金充填或离子充填。结论：光固化复合树脂嵌体离体固化黏结修复牙体严重缺损是一种值得临床推广的好方法。     

嵌体修复体的微漏分析

目的:用热循环法对IPS-EmpressII热压铸瓷嵌体、Brilliant树脂嵌体与金合金嵌体边缘微漏的情况作比较。方法:实验中50个完整离体后磨牙浸泡在生理盐水中三周,每个牙被预备为邻洞型,20个无洞斜面,30个有洞斜面。样品被随机分为5组,第1组为瓷嵌体(IPS-EmpressII)用VariolinkII 粘结系统粘结,第2组为树脂嵌体(Coltene Brillant composites) 光/热聚合处理,用One Coat Bond , Duo Cement粘结。第3, 4, 5组为金合金嵌体(Argenco 50 typeIV),分别用松风羧酸水门汀粘固(HY-Bond Polycaboxylate)、松风玻璃离子水门汀粘固(HY-Bond Glasionomer CX)、登士柏(Poly-F)磷酸锌水门汀粘固。对样本作8℃-60℃300次冷热循环后,样品放在0.5%碱性品红中37℃水中恒温24小时,所有样品用金刚砂片沿嵌体长轴作对称性片切,切缘通过修复体近远中中心。在2 × 15倍立体显微镜下对染色深度作测定,统计学用方差分析法,作F 检验和q检验。结果:第1组与第3、4组 之间差异无显著性,第1、2组之间差异有显著性,第2、5组与第3、4组之间差异有显著性。结论:热循环处理IPS-EmpressII瓷嵌体的微漏值最小,树脂组的微漏值大于瓷嵌体组及金嵌体。金合金用松风玻璃离子和松风羧酸锌水门汀粘结微漏值比用登士柏Poly-F磷酸锌水门汀粘结微漏值小。     

Solidex瓷聚体嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类窝洞的临床观察

目的 :评价Solidex瓷聚体制作嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类窝洞的临床观察。方法 :60个Solidex瓷聚体嵌体修复后牙Ⅱ类窝洞 ,在修复后 1周、6个月、1年、2年时应用改良USPHS标准 ,对其解剖外形、边缘适合性、颜色匹配性、表面光洁度进行临床评价。结果 :所有嵌体都达到临床可接受范围。结论 :Solidex瓷聚体嵌体用于后牙Ⅱ类窝洞修复效果良好     

热压技术制作烤瓷嵌体的实验研究

比较常规法和热压法所制作的实验标本挠屈强度的差异及两种方法所制作嵌体密合度的差异。采用双轴向三点支撑法测量实验标本的挠屈强度，用工具显微镜测量嵌体的密合度。结果表明，两种方法所制作的实验标本的挠屈强度无显著性差异（Ｐ＞０．０５）。用热压法制作的嵌体的密合度优于常规法（Ｐ＜０．０１）。热压技术设备简单、操作方便，可以提高瓷嵌体边缘密合度及外形准确性     

Clinical evaluation of class II Targis inlays: preliminary results after 1 year

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a new generation of restorative resin, Targis (Vivadent), in class II inlay restorations. Forty class II Targis inlays were placed (18 premolars, 22 molars) in 26 patients (mean age=25.5). All test teeth were vital. All restorations were in occlusion and were placed adhesively using Variolink II high viscosity (Vivadent) in combination with Syntac adhesive system under rubber-dam by the same operator. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6 months and 1 year, according to modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria by two examiners. The parameters evaluated were: anatomical form, marginal adaptation, marginal discoloration, colour match, surface finish, gingival index and secondary caries. Post-operative sensitivity was determined by direct questioning. Regarding all of the clinical evaluation criteria all 40 inlays exhibited clinically acceptable scores after 1-year evaluation period. Relying on these early 1-year results, the new restorative material (Targis) seems to be promising in class II inlays.