期刊文献+

复合树脂直接与间接修复后的牙体抗力实验研究 被引量:11

In vitro study on fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect composite resin
下载PDF
导出
摘要 目的了解牙齿直接和间接用树脂修复后的牙体的抗力特性。方法40颗无龋前磨牙,制成MOD洞,然后分成4组,分别以Renew树脂直接充填,Renew直接嵌体修复,Tescera间接嵌体修复,制洞后不加修复。另以10颗完整前磨牙为对照。对上述所有牙齿采用力学模型静态力学加载实验,并进行对比分析研究。结果备洞未修复组牙齿的断裂载荷最小,与Renew树脂充填、Renew直接嵌体修复、Tescera间接嵌体修复及完整牙组有显著性差异(P<0.05);Renew树脂充填、Renew直接嵌体修复、Tescera间接嵌体修复和完整牙组之间抗断裂载荷无显著性差异(P>0.05)。在断裂模式上,Renew树脂充填组、Renew直接嵌体修复组和Tescera间接嵌体修复组分别出现9、3和1个样本树脂断裂。结论复合树脂充填和嵌体修复都能提高缺损牙齿的牙体抗力,复合树脂经过复合固化处理后力学性能有所提高。复合树脂不同固化处理对牙体抗力无明显影响。 Objective:To evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth restored with direct and indirect restorations of composite resin. Method:Fifty maxillary premolars were divided at random into five groups with ten teeth in each group. Standardized MOD cavities were prepared in the teeth of group 1,2,3 and 4 ,and then restored with :①direct filling composite resin( Renew, Bisco USA ), ②direct composite inlay ( Renew Bisco USA ), ③indirect composite resin inlay(Tescera Biseo, USA), and ④ unrestored. Intact teeth( group ⑤) were served as the control. The fracture resistance of the specimens was tested by loading compressive force at 1 mm/min using a universal testing machine. Result:The breaking load ( kN ) in group ①, ②, ③, ④ and ⑤ was 2. 06 ± 0.76,2. 30 ±0.49, 2.62 ±0.68,1.24 ±0.44 and 2.40±0.71 respectively. There was no significant difference among group ①,②, ③ and ⑤(P 〉 0.05 ). Significant difference was found between group ④ and ①, ②,③ or ⑤(P 〈 0.05 ). Conclusion:Both direct and indirect composite resin can strengthen the fracture resistance of restored teeth.
出处 《实用口腔医学杂志》 CAS CSCD 北大核心 2005年第5期600-602,共3页 Journal of Practical Stomatology
关键词 复合树脂类 嵌体 牙齿 断裂试验 Composite resins Inlay Tooth Fracture test
  • 相关文献

参考文献9

  • 1Chen RS, Liu CC, Cheng MR, et al.Bonded amalgam restorations:Using a glass-ionomer as an adhesive liner. Oper Dent,2000,25(5):411
  • 2Jagadish S, Yogesh BG.Fracture resistance of teeth with Class 2 silver amalgam, posterior composite, and glass cermet restorations.Oper Dent,1990,15(2):42
  • 3Neme AL, Evans DB, Maxson BB. Evaluation of dental adhesive systems with amalgam and resin composite restorations: comparison of microleakage and bond strength results. Oper Dent,2000,25(6):512
  • 4Arola D, Galles LA, Sarubin MF.A comparison of the mechanical behavior of posterior teeth with amalgam and composite MOD restorations. J Dent,2001,29(1):63
  • 5Lindemuth JS, Hagge MS, Broome JS.Effect of restoration size on fracture resistance of bonded amalgam restorations. Oper Dent,2000,25(3):177
  • 6Caron GA, Murchison DF, Cohen RB, et al. Resistance to fracture of teeth with various preparations for amalgam. J Dent, 1996,24(6): 407
  • 7Dalpino PH, Francischone CE, Ishikiriama A,et al. Fracture resistance of teeth directly and indirectly restored with composite resin and indirectly restored with ceramic materials. Am J Dent,2002,15(6):389
  • 8Reel DC, Mitchell RJ.Fracture resistance of teeth restored with Class II composite restorations. J Prosthet Dent, 1989,61(2):177
  • 9Foster R.Introducing an aqua-, thermal-, and light- processed indirect composite restorative system. Restorative Quarterly,2002,5(3):1

同被引文献79

引证文献11

二级引证文献89

相关作者

内容加载中请稍等...

相关机构

内容加载中请稍等...

相关主题

内容加载中请稍等...

浏览历史

内容加载中请稍等...
;
使用帮助 返回顶部