Padrós J L, Padrós E, Keogh T P, Monterrubio M
J Prosthet Dent. 2000 Aug;84(2):217-21. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2000.108451.
Bonding systems are used in some fixed prosthetic devices with base alloys. However, different studies of the same dental alloy bonding agents, under similar circumstances, have yielded disparate results in bond strength testing.
This study compared directly 2 dental alloy bonding systems through a "duel" type of confrontation, which basically is a 2-way tensile force test.
Ninety Wiron 88 base alloy cylinders (diameter of 8 mm length 15 mm) were sandblasted on both sides with Al(2)0(3) powder (particle size 50 microm) during 10 seconds at an approximate distance of 5 mm, at an air pressure of 60 psi determined before sandblasting procedures. The surface of each cylinder was cleaned from Al(2)0(3) powder with a strong burst of oil-free air from a chairside air syringe. Thirty cylinders were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 groups for direct bond strength comparison: (1) Panavia 21 to Panavia EX, (2) Panavia 21 to Metabond, or (3) Panavia 21 to a combination of a resin bonding agent plus Panavia 21. Each group was composed of 10 specimens that used 3 cylinders for each specimen. Each side of the sample cylinder received the same quantity of cement and 1 cylinder at a time was bonded to it. Cylinder alignment was verified with a Boley gauge during luting procedures. The bonded 3-piece block was held together for 24 hours under a compressive force of 2 kg/cm(2) using a hydraulic press. Excess cement was removed with a brush, and the pertinent air sealant was applied to allow for autocuring of the cement. Specimens were later stored in water at room temperature for 48 hours before thermocycling procedures. Each specimen was thermocycled for 100 cycles with a 5-minute dwelling time in water at 4 degrees C and 60 degrees C. Specimens were subject to tensile force testing until debonding in 1 of the cylinders.
The opposing pull duel test (OPDT) showed that the Panavia EX failed (40. 3 MPa) 10 of 10 duels against Panavia 21, whereas Panavia 21 failed (49.7 MPa) 9 of 10 duels against Metabond, and Panavia 1 failed (50. 1 MPa) 10 of 10 duels against Photobond+Panavia 21. ANOVA revealed significant differences (P <.05) between PAN-EX group and MET and PHB+P21 groups. However, no significant differences were found between MET and PHB+P21 groups.
The opposing pull duel test was a valid method to directly compare bond strengths of 2 bonding systems to dental base alloys. There was a small dispersion of the values even though cement mixing and thickness variables were difficult to control. Duel tensile testing provides meaningful information on the superiority of one bonding system over another in this controlled environment.
粘结系统用于一些与基合金结合的固定修复装置。然而，对于相同的牙科合金粘结剂，在相似条件下进行的不同研究，在粘结强度测试中得出了不同的结果。
本研究通过“对决”类型的对抗直接比较两种牙科合金粘结系统，这基本上是一种双向拉伸力测试。
90个Wiron 88基合金圆柱体（直径8mm，长度15mm）在两侧用Al₂O₃粉末（粒径50微米）喷砂10秒，喷砂前确定气压为60psi，距离约5mm。用椅旁空气注射器强力喷出无油空气清除每个圆柱体表面的Al₂O₃粉末。30个圆柱体随机分为3组中的1组进行直接粘结强度比较：（1）Panavia 21与Panavia EX，（2）Panavia 21与Metabond，或（3）Panavia 21与树脂粘结剂加Panavia 21的组合。每组由10个样本组成，每个样本使用3个圆柱体。样本圆柱体的每一侧接受相同量的粘结剂，一次粘结1个圆柱体。在粘结过程中用Boley卡尺检查圆柱体的对齐情况。使用液压机在2kg/cm²的压缩力下将粘结的三件式块体保持在一起24小时。用刷子清除多余的粘结剂，并施加相关的空气密封剂以使粘结剂自动固化。样本随后在室温下在水中储存48小时，然后进行热循环处理。每个样本进行100次热循环，在4℃和60℃的水中保持5分钟。对样本进行拉伸力测试，直到其中一个圆柱体脱粘。
对抗拉伸对决测试（OPDT）显示，Panavia EX在与Panavia 21的10次对决中有10次失败（40.3MPa），而Panavia 21在与Metabond的10次对决中有9次失败（49.7MPa），Panavia 1在与Photobond + Panavia 21的10次对决中有10次失败（50.1MPa）。方差分析显示PAN - EX组与MET组和PHB + P21组之间存在显著差异（P <.05）。然而，MET组和PHB + P21组之间未发现显著差异。
对抗拉伸对决测试是直接比较两种粘结系统与牙科基合金粘结强度的有效方法。尽管粘结剂混合和厚度变量难以控制，但数值的离散度较小。在这种受控环境中，对决拉伸测试提供了关于一种粘结系统相对于另一种粘结系统优越性有意义的信息。
