Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userClinical Comparative study between modified metal matrix and gingival retraction cords for microleakage in class V restorations
دراسة سريرية مقارنة بين المسندة المعدنية المعدلة و خيوط تبعيد اللثة من ناحية معدل التسرب الحفافي في حفر الصنف الخامس المعدة للترميم بالكومبوزيت
1583
0 5
0
(
0
)
Created by
Shamra Editor
Ask ChatGPT about the research
تهدف هذه الدراسة الى التقييم السريري للتسرب المجهري الحاصل مباشرة أثناء ترميم حفر الصنف الخامس بالكومبوزيت عند عزلها بالمسندة المعدنية المعدلة أو بخيوط تبعيد اللثة المشربة بالأدرينالين. مواد و طرائق البحث: تألفت عينة البحث من 15 مريض لديهم ضاحكتين على الأقل معدة للقلع تقويمياً وفي نفس الفك و قسمت عينة البحث إلى مجموعة الضواحك اليمنى و مجموعة الضواحك اليسرى، سواء كانت علوية أو سفلية ، تم تهيئة حفرة صنف خامس ذات أبعاد محددة على السطح الدهليزي فقط ثم عزلت أسنان المجموعة الأولى بواسطة المسندة المعدنية المعدلة بينما عزلت أسنان المجموعة الثانية بواسطة خيط تبعيد اللثة ، و تم تطبيق ترميم الكومبوزيت على جميع الأسنان و بعدها تم قلعها في نفس الجلسة و دُرس التسرب المجهري الحاصل مباشرة أثناء الترميم . النتائج: كان هناك فرق إحصائي بنتائج كل من المسندة المعدنية المعدلة و خيوط تبعيد اللثة المطبقين إذ حققت حشوات الكومبوزيت المعزولة باستخدام المسندة المعدنية نسبة تسرب أقل و ذلك عند مقارنتها بخيوط تبعيد اللثة.
This study aims to in vivo evaluate the direct microleakage, in class V composite restoration after isolation using the modified metal matrix or gingival retraction cord impregnated with Adrenaline. Materials and Methods: the research sample consisted of 15 patients; each patient has two premolars at least prepared to be extracted for Orthodontic reasons in the same jaw. This sample divided into two groups according to the place, the right premolars group and the left premolars group, whether was upper or lower. Class V cavity was prepared with a specific dimensions on the buccal surface only, then isolated teeth of the first set by modified metal matrix while isolated teeth of the second set by a gingival retraction cord impregnated with Adrenaline. Teeth restored by composite resin, and then was extracted in the same meeting and studied the microleakage winning directly during restoration. .Results: there was statistical difference between the modified metal matrix and the gingival retraction cord impregnated with Adrenaline. Because modified metal matrix had achieved the lowest leakage rate.
References used
NISHA, G; AMIT, G. Textbook of Operative Dentistry, Jaypee Brothers; 2 edition January 31, 2013,216-222
BONA, A.D; PINZETTA, C; ROSA, V. Microleakage of acid etched glass-ionomer sandwich restorations. Journal of Minimum Intervention in Dentistry; 2009,13-14
XIE, D; BRANTLEY, W.A; CULBERTSON, B.M; WANG, G. Mechanical properties and microstructures of glass-ionomer cements. Dent Mater 2000; 16: 129-138
rate research
Read More
Clinical Evaluation of two types of Self-adhesive Composites (Constic®
- FusioTM) and comparing with conventional flowable composite when used as
restorative material for class V cavities.
These days compositedefinitly became at the top of direct cosmetic restorations, and
the most using restorative material, due to this development now it's used for direct
Veneers &Lumineers.
Because of the high sensitivity of its application, gene
ral practitioner should achieve
a dry, clear work field, especially gingival area.
The aim of the study was to use the modified metal matrix, which used in this study,
is to retract the gum, isolate the tooth from the exudation of the sulcus and bleeding gum
avoiding margin leakage, also provide acceptable continuance between the restoration
surface and the under gum tooth structure, to prevent forming reverse stage under gum.
120 teeth were included in this study, all teeth were treated using the modified metal
matrix, 10 teeth at least for each patient, with no orthodontic treatment. The results have
practically proved getting all goals; retracted gum, tooth isolated from exudation of the
sulcus and bleeding gum, also provided continuance between veneers and under gum tooth
structure, and not having reverse stage which is the main cause of gum inflammation,
beside time saving and easy direct veneer application.
Several methods have been introduced to treat inflammatory
gingival enlargement including laser, electrocautery, and surgical
scalpel which is the standard method adopted. Recently, however,
ceramic bur has emerged as a simple and rapid tool for
gingivectomy
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare gingivectomy
by using ceramic bur and traditional gingivectomy by using
surgical scalpel.
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the
microleakage on the gingival margin located below the cemento-enamel
junction of class II composite restorations (CR ,Tetric-ceram,Vivadent)
applied with a 5th generation bonding material (Excite,Vivadent) and to
compare it with that seen in open sandwich restorations using a
nanoionomer material (OST ,Ketac N100,3M) and a composite material
(Tetric-ceram).
The aims of this study were to evaluate the microleakage in the Class II Cavities Restored with methacrylate resin composite (Tetric Ceram HB) or silorane resin composite (P90 Filtek) that had been stored in different situations and temperatures. Mat
erials and Methods: thirty six intact human upper first premolars were employed. Two Class II cavities with specific dimensions had prepared on each tooth mesially and distally. Teeth were Restored by Methacrylate Resin (HB IVOCLAR), Silorane Resin (P90), Under three different conditions: Group (A): application of composite and Adhesive System at room temperature (24°C), Group (B): application of composite and Adhesive System, immediately after removal from refrigerator temperature (4°C), Group (C): application of composite and Adhesive System, 30 minutes after removal from the refrigerator at room temperature (24°C).Results: This study observed a statistically significant increase in microleakage when applying each of methacrylate composite (HB IVOCLAR) and silorane composite (P90) immediately after removal from refrigerator temperature (4°C) Compared when applied at room temperature (24°C) and when applied 30 minutes after removing from refrigerator temperature, no significant differences were found between silorane composite (P90) and Methacrylate composite (Tetric HB) in microleakage when comparing the two types of resin in the three ways used in storing both resins.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
