三种窝沟封闭剂边缘微渗漏及抗压强度的体外对比研究  

Comparative study in vitro of marginal microleakage and compressive strength of three fissure sealant

作　　者：裴丽玲 薛欣[1] 吕晶[1] 刘英群[1] PEI Liling;XUE Xin;LV Jing;LIU Yingqun(The First Hospital Affiliated with Harbin Medical University, Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Harbin, 150001)

机构地区：[1]哈尔滨医科大学附属第一医院儿童口腔科

出　　处：《现代口腔医学杂志》2019年第3期154-157,共4页Journal of Modern Stomatology

摘　　要：目的探讨自酸蚀窝沟封闭剂、免酸蚀窝沟封闭剂与传统窝沟封闭剂的边缘微渗漏及抗压强度的差异。方法分为两部分。第一部分为微渗漏实验,收集前磨牙30颗,随机分为三组,分别用BeautiSealant、Prevent Seal和Clinpro TM 3种窝沟封闭剂封闭窝沟,每组随机抽取8颗用体视显微镜观察染色后微渗漏情况,剩余2颗用扫描电镜观察封闭剂与牙体组织结合状况。第二部分为抗压强度实验,用3种材料分别制作圆柱状模块32个,于37℃生理盐水中浸泡,分别于浸泡1d、4w、8w、12w后使用电子万能试验机测定各模块的抗压强度(n=8)。结果自酸蚀窝沟封闭剂、免酸蚀窝沟封闭剂与传统窝沟封闭剂的微渗漏结果与封闭剂浸泡不同时间点抗压强度的差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);各测量时间点内不同封闭剂相比,浸泡1d与4w以Prevent Seal窝沟封闭剂组抗压强度最高(P>0.05)。结论自酸蚀窝沟封闭剂和免酸蚀窝沟封闭剂可达到传统窝沟封闭剂的封闭效果。Objective To study the different marginal microleakage and compressive strength between selfetching fissure sealant, acid-free fissure sealant and traditional fissure sealant. Methods Part 1, 30 premolars were collected and randomly divided into 3 groups. BeautiSealant, Prevent Seal and ClinproTMwere respectively used to seal fissures. Eight samples were observed by stereomicroscope after staining. The remaining 2 teeth in each group were observed by SEM. Part 2, 32 cylindrical specimens were prepared for each material and kept in normal saline at 37℃.The compressive strength of the specimens was tested after soaking for 1 d, 4 w, 8 w and 12 w respectively(N =8). Results There was no statistical difference in the microleakage result and compressive strength of sealants with different soaking time(P>0.05). Compared with different sealants at each measurement time point, compressive strength value of Prevent Seal was higher than that of other 2 sealants after soaking for 1 d and 4 w(P>0.05). Conclusion Self-etching fissure sealant and acid-free fissure sealant can achieve the sealing effect of traditional fissure sealant.

关 键 词：自酸蚀窝沟封闭剂 免酸蚀窝沟封闭剂 边缘微渗漏 抗压强度 

分 类 号：R780.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]