3种脱敏剂封闭牙本质小管的扫描电镜观察  

The sealing effects of three desensitizers on tubule:an SEM investigation

作　　者：潘鸣镝[1] 黄轶锋[1] 

机构地区：[1]上海第二医科大学附属第九人民医院,口腔医学院口腔内科,上海200011

出　　处：《上海口腔医学》2005年第1期48-50,共3页Shanghai Journal of Stomatology

摘　　要：目的:比较3种脱敏剂封闭牙本质小管的效果。方法:新鲜离体正畸牙48颗,随机分为4组(3组为实验组,1组为对照组),分别用Systemp脱敏剂(A组)、Seal&protectTM脱敏剂(B组)、Gluma脱敏剂(C组)对实验组暴露的牙本质表面进行处理。然后劈开离体牙处理面,用扫描电镜分别对牙本质表面和剖面进行观察,在组间进行即刻和3个月后(模拟)效果的比较,并与对照组进行比较。结果:3种脱敏剂均在牙本质表面形成封闭,A组和B组还在牙本质小管内形成“树脂突”样结构,且A组较深,而C组没有“树脂突”形成。结论:3种脱敏剂都能取得封闭牙本质小管的效果,Systemp较另两者的封闭性/耐久性可能更佳。PURPOSE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the sealing effects on tubule by three different dentin desensitizers. METHODS: 48 freshly extracted human premolars were selected. Their buccal dentin was exposed and a standardized circular area was isolated. They were randomly divided into three experiment groups and one control group. Dentin desensitizers included Systemp desensitizer,Seal&protectTM desensitizer and Gluma desensitizer. Twelve teeth were prepared for each test group (36 teeth total),and the other twelve teeth were selected as a control group. After the removal of cement,the dentin surfaces were cleaned,treated. Then the teeth were vertically cleaved into two sections. The surface and section of these teeth were observed by means of a scanning electron microscope. RESULTS: All 3 desensitizers could seal the tubules on dentin surface. Systemp desensitizer's dentin permeability was better than Seal&protectTM,but Gluma had no dentin permeability. CONCLUTION: 3 desensitizers had sealing effect on tubule ,systemo desensitizer was the best one.

关 键 词：脱敏剂 牙本质小管 扫描电镜 

分 类 号：R781.2[医药卫生—口腔医学]