【摘要】 目的探讨用Filtek Z350复合树脂和超瓷嵌体修复Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类洞的边缘微渗漏的差异。方法选取40颗新鲜拔除的第三磨牙,随机分成4组,每组10颗。A1组为Ⅰ类洞树脂直接充填,A2组为Ⅱ类洞树脂直接充填,B1组为Ⅰ类洞型超瓷嵌体修复,B2组为Ⅱ类洞超瓷嵌体修复。4组均置于1%碱性品红溶液染色21 d。用低速金刚砂锯沿牙体长轴近远中向切开,制备牙齿切片,体视显微镜观测粘接界面染色剂渗透深度。结果 (1)Ⅰ类(Z=5.909)、Ⅱ类洞(轴壁Z=5.504,龈壁Z=2.958)超瓷嵌体的边缘微渗漏都显著小于Z350复合树脂直接充填(P<0.05);(2)无论树脂直接充填(Z=1.413)还是嵌体修复(Z=0.455),Ⅰ类、Ⅱ类洞的微渗漏差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论超瓷嵌体修复是牙体缺损理想的修复方法。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective To evaluate and compare the marginal microleakage of restorations filled directly with Filtek Z350 composite resin with ceramage inlays in Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ cavities. Methods Human third molars(n=40) were collected and randomly divided into 4 groups(n=10). Inlay cavities of Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ were prepared. A1 and A2 group applied direct composite restorations with Filtek Z350 resin repairing Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ cavities, respectively; while B1 and B2 group used ceramage inlays. Then the teeth were immersed in 1% basic fuchsin solution for 21 days. After that samples were sectioned longitudinally and examined for leakage under the stereomicroscope. Results The marginal microleakage of ceramage inlays in both ClassⅠ and ClassⅡ cavities was significantly lower than that of the direct restorations with Z350 resin. No significant differences were found in Class Ⅰ and Ⅱ cavities restored by either direct fillings or inlays.更多还原