论文部分内容阅读
目的:通过测量3种不同浓度龙胆紫溶液浸入充填体边缘的深度,比较三者在充填体微渗漏检测实验中的性能。方法:将因正畸治疗拔除的人离体前磨牙30颗随机分为A、B、C3组,每组10颗。于离体牙颊面釉牙骨质界冠方1mm处制备4mm×3mm×2mm的标准V类洞型。常规树脂充填并经冷热循环(5℃/55℃,400次)后分别放入浓度为0.5%(A组)、1%(B组)、2%(C组)的龙胆紫溶液中浸泡96h。三用枪冲洗吹干后将离体牙沿颊舌向垂直于充填体表面片切。在根管显微镜下观察离体牙充填体边缘染料浸入情况并摄片。采用Image-Pro Plus 6.0图像分析软件测量龙胆紫溶液浸入深度并记录。结果:A、B、C3组龙胆紫溶液渗入深度分别为(0.59±0.22)mm、(1.38±0.32)mm、(1.52±0.45)mm,3组结果之间有统计学差异(F=21.431,P<0.05)。其中A、B组有统计学差异(t=5.138,P<0.05),A、C组有统计学差异(t=6.082,P<0.05),B、C组无统计学差异(t=0.944,P>0.05)。结论:2%、1%龙胆紫溶液渗透速度较快,0.5%龙胆紫溶液渗透速度最慢;0.5%龙胆紫溶液组渗透稳定性较好,1%龙胆紫溶液次之,2%龙胆紫溶液渗透稳定性最差。
OBJECTIVE: To measure the depth of immersion in gentian violet solution at the edge of filling body by three different concentrations of gentian violet solution, and to compare the performance of the three in the microleakage testing of filling body. Methods: Thirty human premolar teeth extracted from orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into A, B and C3 groups, 10 in each. A standard 4 mm × 3 mm × 2 mm standard V-shaped cavity was prepared at a crown of 1 mm from the enamel surface of the glazed cementum in vitro. Conventional resin was filled and placed in a solution of gentian violet at concentrations of 0.5% (group A), 1% (group B), and 2% (group C) after being subjected to a cooling and heating cycle (5 ° C / 55 ° C, 400 cycles) Soak 96h. Three rinsed with a gun dry off the teeth along the buccal tongue perpendicular to the surface of the filler cut. Under the root canal microscope to observe the edge of the exfoliated tooth filler dye immersion and radiography. The depth of immersion of gentian violet solution was measured and recorded using Image-Pro Plus 6.0 image analysis software. Results: The infiltration depths of gentian violet solution in group A, B and C3 were (0.59 ± 0.22) mm and (1.38 ± 0.32) mm and (1.52 ± 0.45) mm, respectively. There was a significant difference between the three groups (F = 21.431 , P <0.05). There was significant difference between group A and group B (t = 5.138, P <0.05), there was a significant difference between group A and C (t = 6.082, P> 0.05). Conclusion: The permeation rate of 2%, 1% gentian violet solution is faster, the penetration rate of 0.5% gentian violet solution is the slowest. The osmotic stability of 0.5% gentian violet solution group is better, followed by 1% gentian violet solution, 2 % Gentian violet solution penetration stability of the worst.