复合体和复合树脂的牙本质剪切粘结强度。

Schneider B T, Baumann M A, Watanabe L G, Marshall G W

Faculty of Dental Medicine, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.

Dent Mater. 2000 Jan;16(1):15-9. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(99)00078-0.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths and fracture characteristics of two compomers bonded with a single step bonding agent with two modern composites, a microfil and hybrid, bonded with a fourth generation bonding agent.

METHODS

Freshly extracted human third molars were sectioned parallel to the occlusal surface to expose midcoronal dentin, prepared with 320-grit surface finish, and bonded (N = 11 samples/group) following manufacturer's directions with the compomers (Dyract, DeTrey Konstanz, Germany or Compoglass, Vivadent, Schaan Liechtenstein) or the dentin bonding agent SMP+ (Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus, 3M Dental Products, St. Paul MN) with Silux Plus or Z100 (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN). The samples were tested using a single plane lap shear bond strength test at 5 mm/min until failure. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with Scheffe multiple comparison testing. Fracture surfaces of the debonded surfaces were examined using SEM to determine the failure mode of each specimen.

RESULTS

Bond strengths for the compomers were 12.7 +/- 2.9 MPa for Dyract and 8.9 +/- 4.1 MPa for Compoglass and were not significantly different. Bond strengths for the dentin bonded composites were significantly stronger than the compomer Compoglass, but were not different from one another, despite the use of different composites. The averages values for SMP + /Silux Plus and SMP + /Z100 were 15.7 +/- 4.5 MPa and 15.2 +/- 5.6 MPa, respectively. SEM analysis showed that all materials exhibited mixed failure patterns. Compoglass specimens exhibited 5 of 11 failures classified as adhesive, while each of the other materials showed only 1 of 11 adhesive failures.

SIGNIFICANCE

Compomers have undergone rapid development over the last several years, but their bond strengths have not yet reached the same level as modern dentin bonded composites. Difference in composite filler type and amount had little influence on the bond strength determined in this work.

目的

本研究旨在比较两种用单步粘结剂粘结的复合体与两种用第四代粘结剂粘结的现代复合树脂（一种微填料复合树脂和一种混合型复合树脂）的剪切粘结强度和断裂特性。

方法

将新鲜拔除的人类第三磨牙平行于咬合面切片以暴露牙冠中部牙本质，用320目砂纸进行表面处理，然后按照制造商的说明，用复合体（Dyract，德国迪特里康斯坦茨；或Compoglass，列支敦士登沙恩的维他登）或牙本质粘结剂SMP+（3M牙科产品公司的Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Plus，明尼苏达州圣保罗）与Silux Plus或Z100（3M牙科产品公司，明尼苏达州圣保罗）进行粘结（每组11个样本）。使用单平面搭接剪切粘结强度测试以5毫米/分钟的速度对样本进行测试，直至失效。使用方差分析和谢费多重比较测试进行统计分析。使用扫描电子显微镜检查脱粘表面的断裂面，以确定每个样本的失效模式。

结果

Dyract复合体的粘结强度为12.7±2.9兆帕，Compoglass复合体的粘结强度为8.9±4.1兆帕，两者无显著差异。牙本质粘结复合树脂的粘结强度明显强于Compoglass复合体，但尽管使用了不同的复合树脂，它们之间并无差异。SMP + /Silux Plus和SMP + /Z100的平均值分别为15.7±4.5兆帕和15.2±5.6兆帕。扫描电子显微镜分析表明，所有材料均呈现混合失效模式。Compoglass样本的11次失效中有5次被归类为粘结性失效，而其他材料在11次失效中仅出现1次粘结性失效。