Santini A, Mitchell S
University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Am J Dent. 1998 Oct;11(5):219-24.
To evaluate the effect of wet and dry bonding on microleakage of Class V restorations bonded with three bonding agents.
60 extracted human premolars and molars were randomly assigned to three groups for bonding with Gluma CPS, EBS (ESPE) and Prime & Bond 2.1. Cavities were cut in both the buccal and lingual surfaces. Half of each preparation was in enamel and the other was in cementum/dentin. The cavities were restored with composite after the application of dentin bonding agents using a wet and dry technique for each material. The teeth were stored in distilled water for 6 days at 37 degrees C, thermocycled, and the restorations examined microscopically for leakage using Procion Brilliant Red as a marker.
All groups showed microleakage at both the enamel and dentin margins. At the gingival margin, there was a significant difference between the groups for both wet-bonding (P = 0.039) and dry-bonding (P = 0.024). There was no significant difference between the groups at the enamel margin (wet bonding: P = 0.179, dry-bonding: P = 0.357). The wet-bonding technique was compared with the dry-bonding technique for each material at both the gingival and enamel margins and no significant differences were observed (in all cases P > 0.47). SEM showed that in dye-labeled areas debonding occurred mostly, but not always, near the resin-hybrid interface.
评估湿粘结和干粘结对用三种粘结剂粘结的Ⅴ类洞修复体微渗漏的影响。
60颗拔除的人前磨牙和磨牙随机分为三组，分别用Gluma CPS、EBS（贺利氏古莎公司）和Prime & Bond 2.1进行粘结。在颊面和舌面制备窝洞。每个窝洞的一半位于釉质，另一半位于牙骨质/牙本质。使用每种材料的湿粘结和干粘结技术，在应用牙本质粘结剂后用复合树脂修复窝洞。将牙齿在37℃蒸馏水中保存6天，进行热循环处理，并用普施安亮红作为标记物，在显微镜下检查修复体的渗漏情况。
所有组在釉质和牙本质边缘均显示有微渗漏。在牙龈边缘，湿粘结组（P = 0.039）和干粘结组（P = 0.024）之间存在显著差异。在釉质边缘，各组之间无显著差异（湿粘结：P = 0.179，干粘结：P = 0.357）。在牙龈和釉质边缘，对每种材料的湿粘结技术和干粘结技术进行比较，未观察到显著差异（所有情况下P > 0.47）。扫描电镜显示，在染料标记区域，脱粘大多发生在树脂-混合界面附近，但并非总是如此。
