The assessment of internal adaptation and fracture resistance of glass ionomer and resin-based restorative materials applied after different caries removal techniques in primary teeth: an in-vitro study

被引:0
|
作者
Demirel, Akif [1 ]
Orhan, Ayse Isil [2 ]
Buyuksungur, Arda [3 ]
机构
[1] Ankara Univ, Fac Dent, Pediat Dent Dept, Ankara, Yenimahalle, Turkiye
[2] Ankara Yildirim Beyazit Univ, Fac Dent, Pediat Dent Dept, Ankara, Turkiye
[3] Ankara Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Basic Med Sci, Ankara, Yenimahalle, Turkiye
来源
PEERJ | 2023年 / 11卷
关键词
Compomer; Glass ionomer; Firm dentin; Primary teeth; Selective caries removal; BULK-FILL COMPOSITE; INTERVENTION DENTISTRY; MICROLEAKAGE; PERFORMANCE; CAVITIES; CEMENTS;
D O I
10.7717/peerj.14825
中图分类号
O [数理科学和化学]; P [天文学、地球科学]; Q [生物科学]; N [自然科学总论];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the 3-dimensional (3D) internal adaptation (IA) and fracture resistance (FR) of compomer and glass ionomers applied after conventional caries removal to sound dentin (CCRSD) and selective caries removal to firm dentin (SCRFD) in in-vitro.Methods: Thirty extracted primary molars were randomly assigned to three main groups (n = 10) as glass hybrid restorative (GHR) (Equia Forte (R) HT), conventional glass ionomer (CGIR) (Voco Ionofil Molar) and compomer (Dyract XP). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups according to caries removal technique as CCRSD (n = 5) and SCRFD (n = 5). The restoration procedures were completed after caries removal (CCRSD or SCRFD) in all samples. Then, specimens were subjected to IA and FR tests. Data were analyzed with Student's t, one-way ANOVA, and Kruskal Wallis-H tests. The correlation between IA and FR results was analyzed with a Pearson test. The statistical significance level was considered as 5%. Results: While CCRSD showed superior IA results than SCRFD for all restorative materials (p < 0.05), no statistical difference was found between CCRSD and SCRFD in FR assessment (p > 0.05). In CCRSD, compomer showed superior results for IA and FR than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). In SCRFD, it was found no significant difference between the restoratives for IA (p > 0.05). However, compomer showed superior FR results than glass ionomers (p < 0.05). There was moderate negative correlation between internal voids and FR without statistically significant difference (r = -0.333, p = 0.072). Conclusions: Despite the advantages of SCRFD, it was found to be less superior than CCRSD in IA assessment. Therefore, when SCRFD is preferred, a peripheral seal should be provided for ideal restorative treatment. On the other hand, compomer mostly showed superior results compared to others.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 4 条
  • [1] Microleakage of Glass Ionomer based Restorative Materials in Primary Teeth: An In vitro Study
    Ayna, B.
    Celenk, S.
    Atas, O.
    Tumen, E. C.
    Uysal, E.
    Toptanci, I. R.
    [J]. NIGERIAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2018, 21 (08) : 1034 - 1037
  • [2] In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins
    Nezir, Merve
    Ozcan, Suat
    [J]. CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2024, 28 (06)
  • [3] Sealing Ability of Three Different Surface Coating Materials on Conventional and Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Restoration in Primary Anterior Teeth: An In vitro Study
    Deshpande, Anshula
    Macwan, Chirag
    Dhillon, Steffi
    Wadhwa, Medha
    Joshi, Neelam
    Shah, Yash
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL AND DIAGNOSTIC RESEARCH, 2021, 15 (09) : ZC17 - ZC22
  • [4] The Effects of Manual and Powered Brushing with a Tooth Brush on Surface Roughness Alteration of Different Resin and Glass Ionomer-based Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study
    Demirel, Akif
    Bagis, Nilsun
    [J]. MEANDROS MEDICAL AND DENTAL JOURNAL, 2021, 22 (02): : 164 - 171