| Literature DB >> 34212034 |
T A Bakhsh1,2, A Turkistani1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to monitor the behavior of interfacial gaps formed under different bonded polymeric restorations before and after thermocycling (TC), using swept-source optical coherence tomography (SS-OCT) and confirming the obtained findings with confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34212034 PMCID: PMC8208845 DOI: 10.1155/2021/5578539
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Biomed Res Int Impact factor: 3.411
List of the composition of the used materials in this study.
| Material (Manufacturer) Code | Composition | Lot number | Fillers % | Manufacturer recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Clearfil Tri-S Bond Plus adhesive |
| 00007A | — |
|
| Estelite Sigma Quick |
| J018 | 82% (wt.) |
|
| Silorane system adhesive |
| N289224 | — |
|
|
| N209848 | — |
| |
| Filtek Silorane |
| N204592 | 76% (wt.) |
|
HEMA: 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; Bis-GMA: bisphenol-A-diglycidyl methacrylate; TEGDMA: triethyleneglycoldimethacrylate; MDP: 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate; CQ: camphorquinone; wt: weight; vol: volume.
Figure 1Schematic illustration showing the methodology of the study.
Figure 2B-scan for a representative specimen of the TS group at different time intervals: (a) baseline, (b) 2600 TC, (c) 5200 TC, and (d) 10000 TC. Regardless of the time interval, the absence of bright bands of pixels with low backscattered reflection at the cavity floor indicates no loss of interfacial seal. E: enamel; D: dentin; RC: resin composite.
Figure 3B-scan for a representative specimen of the SN group at different time intervals: (a) baseline, (b) 2600 TC, (c) 5200 TC, and (d) 10000 TC. Strong backscattered reflection at the cavity floor in some regions was demonstrated on the B-scan as bright bands of pixels that were considered an interfacial gap. In contrast, regions that did not show an increase in signal intensity at the tooth-resin interface indicated no loss of interfacial seal. E: enamel; D: dentin; RC: resin composite.
Figure 4Representative images for the TS group. (a) B-scan showed low backscattered reflection at the cavity floor, including the target area (dotted box (b)). (b) A confirmatory CLSM image (×50 magnification) for the target area (dotted box (a)) showed no interfacial gap at the dentin-resin interface. E: enamel; D: dentin; RC: resin composite.
Figure 5Representative images for the SN group (a–c). (a) B-scan showed low backscattered reflection at the cavity floor in some areas (dotted box (b)), while other areas showed intense backscattered reflection (dotted box (c)). (b, c) Confirmatory CLSM images (×50 magnification) corresponded to the obtained OCT findings. (b) The interfacial gap was detected within the adhesive layer and corresponded to the bright band of pixels in the OCT B-scan. (c) At the same time, it showed no interfacial gap in the dentin-resin interface of other areas, which was seen as dark pixels at the cavity floor in the presented OCT B-scan. E: enamel; D: dentin; RC: resin composite.
Mean gap percentage at each time interval using Student's independent t-test.
| Time interval (thermocycles) | Group | Mean (%) | SD | Std. error |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | TS | 2.22 | 1.78 | 0.30 | <0.001 |
| SN | 20.55 | 14.11 | 2.35 | ||
| 2600 | TS | 3.03 | 2.24 | 0.37 | <0.001 |
| SN | 53.86 | 20.74 | 3.46 | ||
| 5200 | TS | 2.38 | 1.60 | 0.27 | <0.001 |
| SN | 31.60 | 17.21 | 2.87 | ||
| 10000 | TS | 2.92 | 2.02 | 0.34 | <0.001 |
| SN | 36.10 | 16.64 | 2.77 |
Figure 6Comparison of estimated mean gap percentages at four time intervals between the TS and SN groups.