两种不同的可流动复合材料对前牙碎片再附着的抗折性和微渗漏的比较研究

Saumya, R. Dhingra, Ashish Gupta, B. Karunanand
{"title":"两种不同的可流动复合材料对前牙碎片再附着的抗折性和微渗漏的比较研究","authors":"Saumya, R. Dhingra, Ashish Gupta, B. Karunanand","doi":"10.9734/bjmmr/2017/32526","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and microleakage of reattached anterior tooth fragment using two different flowable composites. Study Design: In-vitro study. Place and of Study: The present in vitro study was carried out in the Department between June and July 2016. Methodology: The subjects were selected from various sources. A total of 160 extracted permanent anteriors were selected for the study. Teeth were divided into 2 groups, 80 teeth in each group reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo and Esthet X-Flow, evaluated for fracture resistance testing using Universal testing machine. Half number of teeth tested for microleakage using Dye-penetration method. The results obtained from the study were then tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Mean value for fracture resistance in Group I were observed (89.07 ± 32.46) whereas in Group II were observed (64.63 ± 40.33). On statistical analysis result found to be highly significant (p = 0.001). Out of 40 teeth, in Group I -16 observed no penetration whereas in Group II -10 teeth were observed no penetration. On Enamel-Dentin microleakage in Group I found to be in 6 teeth, whereas 14 teeth showed the same Enamel-Dentin penetration in Group II. But on statistical analysis, overall result found to be non-significant (p = 0.19). Conclusion: Among the tested flowable composites, G-aenial Universal Flo showed highly significant fracture resistance than Esthet X-flow. Microleakage shows no significant differences between nanohybrid and microhybrid flowable composites.","PeriodicalId":9249,"journal":{"name":"British journal of medicine and medical research","volume":"9 1","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Reattached Anterior Tooth Fragment Using Two Different Flowable Composites- An in vitro Study\",\"authors\":\"Saumya, R. Dhingra, Ashish Gupta, B. Karunanand\",\"doi\":\"10.9734/bjmmr/2017/32526\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and microleakage of reattached anterior tooth fragment using two different flowable composites. Study Design: In-vitro study. Place and of Study: The present in vitro study was carried out in the Department between June and July 2016. Methodology: The subjects were selected from various sources. A total of 160 extracted permanent anteriors were selected for the study. Teeth were divided into 2 groups, 80 teeth in each group reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo and Esthet X-Flow, evaluated for fracture resistance testing using Universal testing machine. Half number of teeth tested for microleakage using Dye-penetration method. The results obtained from the study were then tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Mean value for fracture resistance in Group I were observed (89.07 ± 32.46) whereas in Group II were observed (64.63 ± 40.33). On statistical analysis result found to be highly significant (p = 0.001). Out of 40 teeth, in Group I -16 observed no penetration whereas in Group II -10 teeth were observed no penetration. On Enamel-Dentin microleakage in Group I found to be in 6 teeth, whereas 14 teeth showed the same Enamel-Dentin penetration in Group II. But on statistical analysis, overall result found to be non-significant (p = 0.19). Conclusion: Among the tested flowable composites, G-aenial Universal Flo showed highly significant fracture resistance than Esthet X-flow. Microleakage shows no significant differences between nanohybrid and microhybrid flowable composites.\",\"PeriodicalId\":9249,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"British journal of medicine and medical research\",\"volume\":\"9 1\",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"British journal of medicine and medical research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.9734/bjmmr/2017/32526\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British journal of medicine and medical research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.9734/bjmmr/2017/32526","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

目的:评价和比较两种不同的可流动复合材料对前牙碎片再植的抗骨折性和微渗漏的影响。研究设计:体外研究。研究地点:本体外研究于2016年6月至7月在该系进行。方法:研究对象从不同的来源中选择。本研究共选取160例拔除的恒牙前牙进行研究。将牙分为2组,每组80颗牙分别用g - enial Universal Flo和Esthet X-Flow重新附着,在万能试验机上进行抗断性测试。用染料渗透法检测一半牙齿的微泄漏。从研究中得到的结果被制成表格并进行统计分析。结果:ⅰ组骨折阻力平均值为89.07±32.46,ⅱ组骨折阻力平均值为64.63±40.33。经统计分析发现结果极显著(p = 0.001)。在40颗牙中,I组-16颗牙未观察到渗透,II组-10颗牙未观察到渗透。第一组有6颗牙釉质-牙本质微渗漏,第二组有14颗牙釉质-牙本质微渗漏。但在统计分析上,发现总体结果不显著(p = 0.19)。结论:在所测试的可流动复合材料中,g - enial Universal Flo比Esthet X-flow具有显著的抗断裂性能。微泄漏在纳米复合材料和微混合流动复合材料之间没有显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance and Microleakage of Reattached Anterior Tooth Fragment Using Two Different Flowable Composites- An in vitro Study
Aim: To evaluate and compare the fracture resistance and microleakage of reattached anterior tooth fragment using two different flowable composites. Study Design: In-vitro study. Place and of Study: The present in vitro study was carried out in the Department between June and July 2016. Methodology: The subjects were selected from various sources. A total of 160 extracted permanent anteriors were selected for the study. Teeth were divided into 2 groups, 80 teeth in each group reattached with G-aenial Universal Flo and Esthet X-Flow, evaluated for fracture resistance testing using Universal testing machine. Half number of teeth tested for microleakage using Dye-penetration method. The results obtained from the study were then tabulated and statistically analyzed. Results: Mean value for fracture resistance in Group I were observed (89.07 ± 32.46) whereas in Group II were observed (64.63 ± 40.33). On statistical analysis result found to be highly significant (p = 0.001). Out of 40 teeth, in Group I -16 observed no penetration whereas in Group II -10 teeth were observed no penetration. On Enamel-Dentin microleakage in Group I found to be in 6 teeth, whereas 14 teeth showed the same Enamel-Dentin penetration in Group II. But on statistical analysis, overall result found to be non-significant (p = 0.19). Conclusion: Among the tested flowable composites, G-aenial Universal Flo showed highly significant fracture resistance than Esthet X-flow. Microleakage shows no significant differences between nanohybrid and microhybrid flowable composites.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Pattern and Trends of Respiratory Disease Admissions at the Emergency Paediatrics Unit of Jos University Teaching Hospital – A Four Year Review Acquisition of Competence in Clinical Practical Procedures: A Model of the University of Zambia Medical School nternal Medicine as a Career Choice among Rotatory Interns in a Developing Country- A Multi Centre Study Appreciating the Essence of Post Natal Care Services from Mothers’ Perspective in Kiambu, Kenya Phenylthiocarbamide Taste Perception among HIV- Infected Patients on Highly Active Antiretroviral Therapy
×
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