日本語AIでPubMedを検索
異なる接着性修復材料を用いて修復した模擬侵襲性頸部吸収腔を有する歯内療法的治療歯の破壊抵抗性の比較評価．研究
A comparative evaluation of the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials: An study.
PMID: 33384491 PMCID: PMC7720758. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_345_19.
抄録
目的:
本研究の目的は、従来のグラスアイオノマーセメント（CGIC）、レジン修飾グラスアイオノマーセメント（RMGIC）、流動性コンポジット（FC）、およびジーオマーという異なる修復材料で修復した、侵襲性頸部吸収腔を模擬した歯内療法治療歯の耐破壊性を比較することであった。
Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities, restored with different restorative materials, namely, conventional glass-ionomer cement (CGIC), resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC), flowable composite (FC), and giomer.
方法:
ヒトの永久上顎中切歯60本を、第1群（無傷歯、対照）、第2群（生体力学的準備と吸収腔を有する歯）、第3群（CGIC）、第4群（RMGIC）、第5群（FC）、第6群（giomer）の6つの群に分け、第1群以外は歯内療法を行った。グループ１を除き、他のグループは歯内療法を行った。グループ２の歯は咬合除去せずに残し，グループ３〜６の歯は咬合除去した．グループ2～6の歯には、唇側に模擬吸収腔を作成し、それぞれの修復材料で修復を行った。試験片はインストロン試験機で破損するまで圧縮荷重をかけ，破損時の荷重をニュートン単位で記録した．
Methods: Sixty extracted human permanent maxillary central incisor teeth were assigned to six groups,which were, Group 1 (intact teeth, control), Group 2 (teeth with biomechanical preparation and resorption cavity), Group 3 (CGIC), Group 4 (RMGIC), Group 5 (FC), and Group 6 (giomer). Except for Group 1, other groups were subjected to endodontic treatment. Teeth of Group 2 were left unobturated and teeth of Groups 3-6 were obturated. A simulated resorption cavity was prepared labially in the specimens belonging to Groups 2-6 and restored with respective restorative materials. The specimens were subjected to compressive load until failure in an Instron testing machine and the load at failure was recorded in Newtons.
統計解析:
得られたデータを一方向ANOVAを用いて統計的に解析し、Tukeyの多重比較検定を用いてペアワイズ比較を行い、<0.05を統計的に有意とした。
Statistical Analysis: The data obtained were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, pair-wise comparison was made with Tukey's multiple comparison test, and < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
結果:
異なる接着性修復材料を用いて修復した模擬侵襲性頸部吸収虫歯を有する無傷歯と歯内療法的治療を受けた歯の破壊抵抗性には統計的に有意な差が認められた。修復された歯の中では、有意差は認められなかった。
Results: There was a statistically significant difference in the fracture resistance of intact teeth and endodontically treated teeth with simulated invasive cervical resorption cavities restored with different adhesive restorative materials. Among the restored teeth, there was no significant difference.
結論:
無傷の歯が最も耐折性が高いことが判明し，次いでギオマー，FC，RMGIC，CGICの順で修復された歯であった．
Conclusion: Intact teeth were found to have the highest resistance to fracture followed by those restored with giomer, FC, RMGIC, and CGIC in that order.
Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Conservative Dentistry.