Farklı iki ışık kaynağının akışkan restoratif materyallerin kenar sızıntıları üzerine etkisi

Effect of two different light curing units on microleakage of flowable restorative materials

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, farklı iki ışık kaynağının üç akışkan restoratif rezin materyalin kenar sızıntılarına olan etkilerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Çalışmada 30 adet premolar dişin bukkal ve lingual yüzeylerine, okluzal duvarları minede, gingival duvarları dentinde olacak şekilde 60 adet 5. sınıf kavite açıldı. Dişler rastgele üç gruba ayrıldı; I.Grup: Admira Flow (akışkan ormoser); II.Grup: Dyract Flow (akışkan kompomer) ve III. Grup; Filtek Flow (akışkan hibrit kompozit) ile restore edildi. Her grup, kendi içinde iki alt gruba ayrılarak; Halojen ışık kaynağı-QTH (Hilux 200) ve Lightemitting diode-LED (Mini LED) ile polimerize edildi. Hazırlanan örneklere 500 kez termal siklus (5-550C) uygulandıktan sonra örnekler % 0,5’lik bazik fuksin solusyonunda 24 saat bekletildi. Daha sonra dişler yıkanıp, bukkolingual yönde dikey olarak kesilerek stereomikroskop altında incelendi (X40). Boya penetrasyon dereceleri kaydedildi. Alınan sonuçlar Kruskal-Wallis ve Mann-Whitney U testi ile istatistiksel olarak değerlendirildi. Bulgular ve Sonuç: Çalışmanın sonucunda, halojen ve LED ile polimerize edilen restoratif materyallerin okluzal kenarlarında herhangi bir sızıntı saptanmadı. Gingival kenarlarda ise, LED ile polimerize edilen restoratif materyallerin sızıntıları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark gözlenmezken (p>0.05), halojen ile polimerize edilen Admira Flow/Filtek Flow ile Dyract Flow/Filtek Flow arasındaki fark istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bulundu (p0.05).

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of light curing units on microleakage of three different types of flowable resin materials. Material and Methods: Sixty Class V cavities were prepared in buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 recently extracted human premolars. The cervical wall was located in dentin and the occlusal wall was located in enamel. These teeth were randomly assigned into four groups and restored as follows; Group I: Admira Flow (ormocer flowable), Group II: Dyract Flow (compomer flowable) and Group III: Filtek Flow (flowable composite). Each group was randomly divided into two subgroups; while the samples of the first subgroup was polymerized with conventional Halogen light (Hilux 200) the second subgroup was polymerized with light-emitting diode (Mini LED). The specimens were thermocycled 500 times (5- 550C) and then were immersed in 0,5% basic fuchsin for twenty-four hours. After rinsing, the restorations were longitudinally sectioned and dye penetration was assessed under a stereomicroscope (40x). Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results and Conclusion: None of the flowable restorative materials polymerized with halogen or LED showed leakage at enamel margins. At gingival margins, while no statististically significant differences in the microleakage scores were found among the flowable restorative materials polymerized with LED, significant differences were found between Admira Flow/Filtek Flow and Dyract Flow/Filtek Flow that were polymerized with the halogen light. Except for Filtek Flow, no significant differences were found in the microleakage scores among the light curing units used for Admira flow and Dyract Flow.