Evaluation of the microleakage of new bioactive restorative materials: a comparative in-vitro study.

IF 1.1 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Minerva dental and oral science Pub Date : 2024-07-15 DOI:10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3
Bashaer Abdulsahib Najim, Abeer Ghalib Abdulkhaliq, Mohammed Nahidh, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini
{"title":"Evaluation of the microleakage of new bioactive restorative materials: a comparative in-vitro study.","authors":"Bashaer Abdulsahib Najim, Abeer Ghalib Abdulkhaliq, Mohammed Nahidh, Vincenzo Ronsivalle, Marco Cicciù, Giuseppe Minervini","doi":"10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This in-vitro study aimes to compare the microleakage of different restorative materials namely EQUIA Forte (GC, Japan), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and Activa BioACTIVE.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A standardized class V cavity has been created on the buccal surface of 40 sound premolar teeth. The cavity had the following measurements: 3 mm buccolingual height, 2 mm axial depth, and 4 mm mesiodistal width. The gingival margin was 1mm below the cementoenamel junction, whereas the coronal margin was on the enamel with cavosurface margins were butt joints all around. Four groups of teeth were restored according to the restorative materials. Under a stereomicroscope, the dye penetration test was used to measure the microleakage after thermocycling of the teeth. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Occlusal and gingival margins did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups, but an intragroup analysis revealed a significant difference.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The type of restorative material did not appear to have a substantial impact on microleakage, according to the findings of the current investigation.</p>","PeriodicalId":18709,"journal":{"name":"Minerva dental and oral science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Minerva dental and oral science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.23736/S2724-6329.24.04873-3","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: This in-vitro study aimes to compare the microleakage of different restorative materials namely EQUIA Forte (GC, Japan), Tetric Evoceram (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), and Activa BioACTIVE.

Methods: A standardized class V cavity has been created on the buccal surface of 40 sound premolar teeth. The cavity had the following measurements: 3 mm buccolingual height, 2 mm axial depth, and 4 mm mesiodistal width. The gingival margin was 1mm below the cementoenamel junction, whereas the coronal margin was on the enamel with cavosurface margins were butt joints all around. Four groups of teeth were restored according to the restorative materials. Under a stereomicroscope, the dye penetration test was used to measure the microleakage after thermocycling of the teeth. Data were compared using Kruskal-Wallis H and Mann-Whitney U tests.

Results: Occlusal and gingival margins did not show statistically significant differences among the four groups, but an intragroup analysis revealed a significant difference.

Conclusions: The type of restorative material did not appear to have a substantial impact on microleakage, according to the findings of the current investigation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新型生物活性修复材料的微渗漏评估:体外对比研究。
背景:这项体外研究旨在比较不同修复材料(即 EQUIA Forte(日本 GC 公司)、Tetric Evoceram(列支敦士登 Ivoclar Vivadent 公司)和 Activa BioACTIVE)的微渗漏情况:方法:在 40 颗健全前臼齿的颊面制作一个标准的 V 级龋洞。龋洞的测量值如下颊舌侧高度为 3 毫米,轴向深度为 2 毫米,中周宽度为 4 毫米。龈缘在牙釉质交界处下 1 毫米,而冠缘在釉质上,龋洞表面边缘四周为对接。根据修复材料的不同,修复了四组牙齿。在体视显微镜下,使用染料渗透试验测量牙齿热循环后的微渗漏情况。数据比较采用 Kruskal-Wallis H 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验:结果:咬合边缘和龈缘在四组之间没有统计学意义上的显著差异,但组内分析显示存在显著差异:结论:根据目前的研究结果,修复材料的类型似乎对微渗漏没有实质性的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Minerva dental and oral science
Minerva dental and oral science DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
5.00%
发文量
61
期刊最新文献
In-silico immunoinformatic vaccine design for Treponema denticola ergothionase. Virtual reality in specialized dentistry: employing virtual reality for the alleviation of pain and anxiety in hereditary angioedema patients. Medico-legal considerations in immediate loading implantology: risks, responsibilities, and best practices. Restorative and endodontic clinical strategies during COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic: a revision of the literature. A simple method to identify implant sites in totally edentulous arches: a pilot study with thermo-printed templates used with cone beam computed tomography.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1