瓷化纳米树脂Tetric N-Ceram治疗牙颈部楔状缺损的临床疗效

目的比较Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂玻璃离子和普通型玻璃离子水门治疗牙颈部楔状缺损的疗效。方法楔状缺损的病人100例,共300颗牙。随机分成Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂组45例,共150颗牙,男性23例,女性22例,年龄（54±8）岁,病程（5±5）d,使用Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂及配套的酸蚀、釉质黏合剂充填;普通型玻璃离子水门组55例,男性35例,女性20例,年龄（54±8）岁,病程（5±4）d,使用传统型玻璃离子水门丁充填。结果 Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂组一次成功率96.6%,高于玻璃离子组的70.0%,差异有非常显著意义。Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂组的脱落率、牙髓刺激发生率明显低于玻璃离子组（P〈0.01）,继发龋齿和密合度欠佳的发生率低于玻璃离子组（P〈0.05）。结论 Tetric N-Ceram瓷化纳米树脂是高强度、高粘结度、颜色逼真、操作简单使用后无不良反应,值得在临床上推广使用。     

两种材料修复牙体楔状缺损疗效比较

目的：观察比较玻璃离子和光固化树脂两种材料修复牙体楔状缺损的治疗效果。方法 ２０６例患者４６２颗楔状缺损患牙。每一患者随机选一侧患牙采用玻璃离子粘固剂（富士Ⅱ型）直接充填修复,另一侧采用光固化树脂充填修复,追踪２年,比较其疗效。结果 采用玻璃离子粘固剂修复２３７颗患牙,成功２２５颗,成功率９４．９４％,采用光固化树脂充填修复２２５颗患牙,成功１４６颗,成功率６４．８９％。结论 玻璃离子粘固剂直接充     

3种方法修复楔状缺损的疗效观察

楔状缺损是常见的牙体非龋性疾病之一。笔者应用GCFu ji IX GP玻璃离子水门汀、光固化瓷化树脂、Dyract复合材料修复楔状缺损,并对其疗效进行比较,报道如下。 1资料与方法 1.1临床资料156例患者,共380颗楔状缺损牙,均无牙髓病变。随机分成3组,A组：GC Fu ji IX GP玻璃离子水门汀;B组：光固化瓷化树脂;C组：Dyract复合材料。     

Fuji Ⅱ加强型玻璃离子和光固化复合树脂修复楔状缺损的临床疗效观察

目的：对比观察FujiⅡ加强型玻璃离子水门汀和F2000光固化复合衡脂修复牙颈部楔状缺损的临床疗效。方法：对122例楔状缺损患者487个患牙随机分成2组，分别采用FujiⅡ加强型玻璃离子水门汀和F2000光固化复合树脂对牙颈部楔状缺损进行修复，治疗后6～24个月复查，对2组病例的治疗效果进行分析。结果：两组病例成功率比较无统计学差异。结论：用FujiⅡ加强型玻璃离子水门汀和F2000光固化复合树脂修复牙颈部楔状缺损能取得较好临床效果。     

3M玻璃离子树脂复合体修复楔状缺损

目的 观察玻璃离子树脂复合体修复充填楔状缺损的效果。方法 用树脂复合体对40例，85颗楔状缺损患牙进行修复充填。结果 修复成功77颗，占90．6％；失败8颗，占9．4％。结论 玻璃离子树脂复合体是修复楔状缺损中较好的一种充填材料。     

三种类型不同的材料修复楔状缺损的临床分析

目的 :探讨修复楔状缺损较好的材料。方法 :在同一个体选择条件基本相同的楔状缺损患牙分别采用光固化玻璃离子、光固化复合树脂及 3M F2000复合体充填修复 ,共120例 360颗 ,随访观察1.5～2年。结果 :F2000组120颗治疗牙中 ,其中仅1颗修复体脱落 ,无一例密合度失败及牙髓病变发生 ,三项指标成功率均明显高于复合树脂组(p<0.05) ,与玻璃离子组相近似 ;除脱落的修复体外 ,其余修复体均完整、无缺损 ,该项指标效果与复合树脂相近似 ,但明显优于玻璃离子组 (p <0.01) ;F2000组总失败率为0.83% ,明显低于复合树脂组及玻璃离子组 (p <0.01)。结论 :3MF2000复合体是修复楔状缺损一种较好的材料 ,其疗效优于光固化玻璃离子及复合树脂。     

玻璃离子水门汀与纳米树脂充填乳牙邻面龋的效果比较

目的 比较玻璃离子水门汀与纳米树脂充填乳牙邻面龋的效果.方法 选择来我科就诊的年龄为5～8岁的乳磨牙邻面龋102例,共320颗患牙,其中深龋组204颗,中、浅龋组116颗,每组随机分为富士Ⅸ玻璃离子水门汀充填(A组)和光固化纳米树脂充填(B组).深龋A组采用氢氧化钙盖髓玻璃离子水门汀充填,深龋B组采用氢氧化钙盖髓,玻璃离子水门汀垫底后纳米树脂充填;中浅龋A组直接玻璃离子水门汀充填,B组中龋玻璃离子水门汀垫底后纳米树脂充填,浅龋直接纳米树脂充填.分别在3个月、6个月、1年时复查充填效果,比较两组成功率.结果 深龋组2种材料在各个时间段成功率均无统计学差异(P＞0.05),中、浅龋组2种材料在3个月时两组成功率无统计学差异(P＞0.05),但在6个月和1年时纳米树脂充填组成功率优于玻璃离子水门汀充填组(P＜0.05).结论 光固化纳米树脂是临床上充填乳牙易脱落之邻面龋较好的选择.     

中、重度氟牙症楔状缺损不同材料修复脱落情况研究

目的：分析不同充填材料在中、重度氟牙症楔状缺损患牙充填修复后的脱落情况。方法：收集中、重度氟牙症楔状缺损患者83例，共300颗患牙，随机均分成A、B、C组，分别采用3M FiltekTM Z350纳米树脂、可乐丽菲露AP－X复合树脂、松风FX－II玻璃离子水门汀充填修复。在充填修复治疗后3、6、12个月进行复查，观察充填材料脱落率。结果：3、6、12个月的脱落率3组之间存在差异（P＜0．05），C组在3个时间点脱落率均大于其他两组（P＜0．05），A组和B组在3个月和6个月时脱落率无差异（P＞0．05），在12个月时脱落率B组大于A组（P＜0．05）。3组病例在各时间点复查均未出现继发龋。B组在6个月和12个月复查时出现牙髓病变病例，但与其他两组比较无统计学差异（P＞0．05）。结论：①．松风FX－II玻璃离子水门汀及可乐丽菲露AP－XTM复合树脂短期内脱落率较高，并有牙髓刺激症状。②．3M FiltekTM Z350纳米树脂在1年期内脱落率很低。     

3种无托槽隐形矫治器附件粘接方法的比较研究

目的 比较全酸蚀粘接剂、自酸蚀粘接剂和树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀3种材料粘接无托槽隐形矫治器附件的操作时间和临床效果。方法 将采用无托槽隐形矫治器矫治的30例错牙合畸形患者（附件156个）随机分为3组,每组10例。A组采用3M Adper Single Bond 2全酸蚀粘接剂和3M Z350纳米充填树脂粘接附件,B组采用3M Adper Easy One自酸蚀粘接剂和3M Z350纳米充填树脂粘接附件,C组直接采用GC Fuji Ortho LC树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘接附件。记录每个附件的操作时间,评价粘接时、治疗1个月和6个月时3组附件的失败情况。结果 C组附件的操作时间较A、B组短（P<0.01）。3组附件之间的粘接失败率无统计学差异（P>0.05）,同一组内不同时间的粘接失败率也无统计学差异（P>0.05）。结论 3种材料粘接附件的稳定性均能达到满意的效果,但树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀操作简便,更适宜临床推广。     

3种充填材料应用于牙颈部非龋性缺损的边缘封闭性研究

目的　比较3种不同材料充填牙颈部非龋性硬组织缺损后的密合度及微渗漏情况,为临床选择合适的修复材料提供借鉴。方法　拟收集临床即刻拔除的无龋前磨牙120颗,随机分为3组,每颗牙颊面近颈1/3处制备V类洞,分别充填GC Fuji Ⅱ光固化玻璃离子、Polofil Supra（波洛菲）通用型光固化树脂及3M z350纳米树脂。通过染料渗透实验,倒置金相显微镜下测量充填体边缘微缝隙的宽度及染料渗漏程度。结果　3种充填材料边缘均有染料渗入,渗入深度由小到大排序依次为:3M z350树脂＜波洛菲通用型光固化树脂＜GC Fuji II光固化玻璃离子,3组比较均有统计学差异（P＜0.01）;显微镜下测量3种充填物边缘与牙体间的缝隙宽度分别为:GC Fuji II光固化玻璃离子（22.62±2.46）μm、波洛菲通用型光固化树脂（15.91±2.51）μm、3M z350纳米树脂（15.16±2.12）μm。波洛菲与z350纳米树脂相比无差异（P＞0.05）,2种复合树脂材料与GC玻璃离子均有差异（P＜0.05）。结论　波洛菲树脂与z350纳米树脂边缘封闭性优于GC Fuji II光固化玻璃离子。     

两种楔状缺损修复材料的临床效果比较

目的 探讨两种修复楔状缺损材料的应用效果.方法 将294例患者共1242颗患牙随机分为两组.实验组:149例患者648颗患牙,采用Dyract AP复合体修复.对照组:145例患者594颗患牙,采用3M-Vitemer新一代光固化玻璃离子水门汀修复.修复后1～2年进行复查,观察两组的临床效果.结果 两种修复材料均显示出优良的固位性能和边缘密合性,对牙髓和牙周组织均无刺激;实验组和对照组的成功率分别为92.59％和88.38％,两组差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05).结论 两种材料修复楔状缺损均可获得较好的临床效果,其中复合体修复的成功率高于光固化水门汀.     

玻璃离子和光固化复合树脂应用于前磨牙根面龋治疗的效果比较

目的比较玻璃离子和光固化复合树脂应用于老年人前磨牙根面龋治疗的效果,为探求更好的根面龋充填材料提供依据。方法患有根面龋的前磨牙160颗随机平均分为2组,分别使用玻璃离子（玻璃离子组）和光固化复合树脂（树脂组）进行治疗,随访12个月。结果玻璃离子组成功75颗,失败5颗,成功率93.75%;树脂组成功67颗,失败13颗,成功率83.75%;玻璃离子组成功率高于树脂组,差异有统计学意义（χ2=4.006,P=0.045）。结论用玻璃离子应用于老年人前磨牙根面龋治疗,效果优于光固化复合树脂。     

SDR在楔状缺损修复治疗中的疗效评价

选择门诊患者168人共302颗楔状缺损患牙,分别使用3种材料进行修复,随访观察12～15个月,比较疗效.结果发现,新型的楔状缺损修复材料(smart dentin replacement,SDR) (n=112)、玻璃离子水门汀(n=98)和光固化复合树脂(n=92)的修复成功率分别为96.2％、84.8％和86.2％,SDR的修复效果明显好于另外2组(P＜0.01).     

The marginal seal of Class II restorations: flowable composite resin compared to injectable glass ionomer

The objective of this study was to investigate the effect of a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow) versus an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) on microleakage at the cavosurface margin of the proximal box of Class II restorations in permanent teeth in-vitro. Thirty caries and restoration-free human bicuspids were prepared with mesial and distal slot preparations and were filled either with a bonding agent (Optibond) plus a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow), Group I; bonding agent (Optibond) plus a flowable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC), Group II; or a flowable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with no bonding agent, Group III. All specimens were then immersed in a 2% solution of basic fuschin dye for 24 hours to allow for dye penetration into possible existing gaps. These teeth were then carefully sectioned mesially/distally into two pieces using an Isomet saw. The teeth were then studied under a binocular microscope to measure depths of dye penetrations as an indication of marginal microleakage at the gingival cavosurface margin and scored as follows: 0 = no dye penetration, 1 = dye penetration into enamel only, 2 = dye penetration into enamel and dentin, 3 = dye penetration into the pulp. The specimens were also evaluated using a SEM. The results showed that there were statistically significant differences between Groups I (Tetric Flow) and (Fuji II LC plus bonding agent), II in favor of Group I; between Groups I and (Fuji II LC with no bonding agent), III in favor of Group I; as well as Groups II and III in favor of Group II (Fuji II LC plus bonding agent). Group I (bonding agent plus flowable composite resin) showed significantly less microleakage. Group II (bonding agent plus flowable glass ionomer) demonstrated a bond that existed between the bonding agent and the glass ionomer but microleakage within microgaps of the glass ionomer itself Group III (flowable glass ionomer plus no bonding agent) demonstrated significant microleakage between the glass ionomer and tooth structure, microgaps within the glass ionomer, and lack of retention of the restoration. It appears that the use of a flowable composite resin (Tetric Flow) plus a bonding agent (Optibond) in the proximal box of a Class II restoration in permanent teeth will significantly reduce the microleakage at the cavosurface margin when compared with an injectable glass ionomer (Fuji II LC) with or without a bonding agent (Optibond).     

三种方法修复楔形缺损疗效对比

目的 :比较玻璃离子水门汀、光固化复合树脂、光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术修复楔形缺损的疗效。方法 :5 0例 2 6 7个楔形缺损牙随机分成A、B、C 3组 ,用不同材料修复 ,A组用玻璃离子水门汀 ,B组用光固化复合树脂 ,C组用光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术修复楔形缺损 ,随访 2年后的疗效。结果 :A组的 89个牙中有 10个牙失败 ,成功率为 88.9% ;B组的 89个牙中有 17个牙失败 ,成功率为 80 .9% ;C组的 89个牙中有 3个牙失败 ,成功率为95 .4 %。结论 :用玻璃离子水门汀修复楔形缺损的成功率稍高于光固化复合树脂修复楔形缺损的成功率 ,但光固化复合树脂比玻璃离子水门汀美观、耐磨 ,而光固化玻璃离子水门汀夹层技术成功率高于另二者 ,同时具有二者的优点。提示临床中应根据患者年龄、性别、牙位、缺损度以及患者的要求选择恰当的修复方法。     

An in vitro investigation of marginal dentine caries abutting composite resin and glass ionomer cement restorations

BACKGROUND: There are a number of studies citing the primary reason for replacing auto cure glass ionomer cements was due to recurrent caries. The purpose of this study was to use an in vitro model to measure caries at the dentine restoration interface of bonded composite resin and auto cure glass ionomer cement restorations and to measure the amount of surface degradation occurring in the restorative materials. METHODS: Specimens of auto cure glass ionomer cements (Riva Fast, Fuji IX Fast, Ketac Molar Quick and Fuji VII) and bonded composite resin restorations (Ice, SDI) were placed separately at the dentino-enamel junction of 10 recently extracted human third molar teeth, disinfected and placed into the overflow from a continuous culture of S. mutans for two weeks. Restorations were sectioned and prepared for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and electron probe microanalysis (EPMA). Restoration tooth interfaces were photographed and the distance from the surface of the teeth to the surface of the restorations measured. EPMA of percentage weights of calcium, phosphorous and fluoride were made outwards from the restoration surface 130pm at a depth of 10 microm below the surface of the dentine. RESULTS: There were significant differences between the surface heights of composite resin, auto cure glass ionomer cements compared to teeth surfaces. Percentage weights of calcium and phosphorus levels were similar to non-demineralized dentine in the auto cure glass ionomer cement samples but there were significant reductions in mineral content of dentine adjacent to bonded composite resin restorations. Fluoride levels were mixed. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that placing a bonded composite resin restoration into dentine affords little protection to the surrounding tooth from caries attack although insignificant degradation of the restorative surface occurs. Placing a glass ionomer cement restoration into dentine protects the surrounding tooth from caries but degradation of the restoration surface occurs.     

�����������ά׮�ٴ�Ч���Ƚ��о�

目的    评价双重固化高强度复合树脂水门汀和树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀黏固纤维桩的临床效果。方法     选择2007年在沈阳沈河金英武口腔诊所就诊,拟采用纤维桩修复的70例前磨牙或第一磨牙缺损患者的96颗患牙,随机分为2组,每组48颗,分别用不同的黏结剂（Ⅰ组：双重固化高强度复合树脂水门汀;Ⅱ组：树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀）黏固纤维桩,制备树脂桩核,全冠修复。随访2年,观察修复效果。结果    Ⅰ组4颗失败,1颗为上颌第二前磨牙纤维桩折断,另3颗为上颌第一前磨牙纤维桩脱落,成功率为91.7%;Ⅱ组2颗失败, 1颗为上颌第一前磨牙,另1颗为下颌第一前磨牙,均为纤维桩折断,成功率为95.8%。两组治疗成功率比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论    2种黏结剂用于临床黏固纤维桩均表现出良好的临床效果。     

Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: Bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva

The purposes of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a standard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto: a) dry teeth and b) teeth soaked with saliva. The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design. In that, both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient. Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: group A (11 patients) and group B (27 patients). In group A, the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated: 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement (GC Industrial Co., Tokyo, Japan) onto dry teeth, and 110 bonded with System 1+ composite resin (Ormco Corp., Glendora, CA). In group B, the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated: 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva, and 270 bonded with System 1+. In group A, GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate (34.5%) significantly higher (p < 0.05) than System 1+ (9%) when applied onto completely dry teeth. Conversely, in group B, no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva. It was concluded, therefore, that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinically acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth, but not when used on dry enamel. Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface, without causing any enamel damage.