流动性复合树脂洞衬对I类洞洞壁收缩应力的影响  

Efficacy of flowable composite resin as stress-absorbing liners in Class I cavity restorations

作　　者：赵信义[1] 张文彦[1] 李石保[1] 李雅萍[1] 龚旭[1] 

机构地区：[1]第四军医大学口腔医学院口腔材料学教研室,西安710032

出　　处：《中华口腔医学杂志》2013年第11期664-668,共5页Chinese Journal of Stomatology

摘　　要：目的观察流动性复合树脂洞衬对普通复合树脂充填I类洞洞壁收缩应力的影响，为流动性复合树脂的临床应用提供参考。方法在聚碳酸酯板上制备直径4mm、深2mm的窝洞30个，使用粘接剂后将窝洞分为3组（每组10个）进行充填修复。无洞衬组：直接充填复合树脂A（Charisma）；洞衬1组：用流动性复合树脂B（RevolutionFormula2）洞衬两层，每层光照20S，然后充填复合树脂A；洞衬2组：用流动性复合树脂C（TerieFlow）洞衬两层，每层光照20S，然后充填复合树脂A。于光固化后3rain及24h在显微光弹仪上观测3组窝洞周围环状等差条纹直径，计算收缩应力。采用粘接片法测定复合树脂A和流动性复合树脂B、C的聚合体积收缩率（％），并按照标准方法测定弹性模量。结果无洞衬组、洞衬1组和2组固化后3min的收缩应力分别为（4．93±0．28）、（4．90±0．30）、（4．76±0．28）MPa；固化后24h的收缩应力分别为（5．87±0．40）、（5．844-0．33）、（5．834-0．37）MPa，相同时间点3组问差异均无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。树脂A、B、c的聚合体积收缩率分别为（2．634-0．04）％、（4．564-0．06）％、（3．98±0．02）％，弹性模量分别为（9．59±0．65）、（4．254-0．51）、（5．41±0．79）GPa，3种树脂问差异均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论本项研究条件下用流动性复合树脂对I类洞进行洞衬不能显著减小普通复合树脂充填修复对洞壁产生的收缩应力。Objective To evaluate the efficacy of flowable composite resin（FCR） as stress- absorbing liners in Class I cavity restorations in vitro. Methods Thirty Class [ cavities of 4 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth were prepared in polycarbonate （PC） plates and divided into three groups, ten each. After application of an adhesive, cavities in each group were restored using one of the following methods： A： restored with Charisma without any lining of FCR; B： lined with Revolution Formula 2 twice before restoration with Charisma; C： lined with Terie Flow twice before restoration with Charisma. All cavities were observed under a photoelastic microscope and photoelastic images were recorded at 3 min and 24 h after curing and the shrinkage stresses on the cavity wall were calculated. The polymerization shrinkage（v% ） of the three composite resins was measured using bonded discs method and their elastic moduli were measured according to ISO standard. Results The shrinkage stresses at 3 rain and 24 h of the three methods were as follows,A： （4. 93 ±0. 28）, （5.87 ±0. 40） MPa,B： （4. 90 ±0. 30）, （5.84 ±0. 33） MPa, and C ： （ 4. 76 ± 0. 28 ） , （ 5.83 ± 0. 37 ） MPa. No significant difference was found in results among different groups. The polymerization shrinkage （v%） in group A, B, and C were （2. 63 ± 0. 04 ）% , （4. 56 ± 0. 06） %, and （3.98 _± 0.02） %. The elastic modulus in group A, B, and C were （9. 59 ± 0. 65 ）, （4. 25 _± 0. 51 ）,and （5.41 ± 0. 79 ） GPa. Conclusions Under present study condition, using a FCR as stress- absorbing liner under composite resin restoration does not significantly decrease the polymerization shrinkage stresses at the cavity wall.

关 键 词：复合树脂类 应力 物理 弹性模量 牙洞衬料 聚合收缩 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]