Dunn W J, Söderholm K J
Dept of Dental Biomaterials, College of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville 32610-0446, USA.
Am J Dent. 2001 Oct;14(5):297-303.
To (1) measure the shear and flexural bond strengths of three different bonding agents that use different application techniques, (2) determine whether the shear and flexural bond tests rank the three materials similarly, and (3) determine whether the fractured surface produced with the flexural test, facilitates studies of failures within the adhesive interphase region.
Scotchbond MP (SBMP), Single Bond (SNGB) and Clearfil SE (CLSE) were evaluated. For each material, 16 samples were bonded. Eight of these samples were bonded for shear testing and the other 8 samples for flexural bond strength testing. After the bonding was completed, all samples were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 30 days. Shear bond strength was measured using an orthodontic edge wire loop and flexural strength was measured using a 4-point bending device. The samples used for the flexural test consisted of 3 mm x 3 mm x 20 mm beams in which center a 1 mm thick dentin wafer had been bonded perpendicularly to the length of the beam. An indentation with a microhardness tester was placed at one of the dentin-composite interfaces to serve as an induced flaw. This flaw was placed on the surface in tension during flexural testing. The data were analyzed using ANOVA. Scanning electron microscopy was used to examine each specimen and assign its failure mode. Percent occurrence of failure mode was determined for each material and overall for both test methods. When there was uncertainty regarding failure location, electron dispersive spectroscopy x-ray analysis was used to identify elements present on the fractured surface.
No significant difference (P > 0.05) in bond strength was observed within each test group, while significant differences (P < 0.05) existed between the two test methods (shear: SBMP = 21.2 +/- 4.0 MPa, SNGB= 24.3 +/- 4.7 MPa, CLSE= 24.6 +/- 4.4 MPa; flexural strength: SBMP= 34.6 +/- 9.3 MPa, SNGB = 31.9 +/- 6.9 MPa, CLSE= 34.3 +/- 4.7 MPa). Shear bond test specimens failed mostly within dentin (54.2%), followed by failures within the adhesive interphase (41.6%), and failures in composite (4.2%). Flexural strength specimens failed mostly within the adhesive interphase (83.3%), followed by failure in composite (16.7%). Bond strengths were similar for all three adhesive systems within each test method group. Failure mode analysis revealed significant differences (P < 0.0001) among the two test methods.
(1)测量三种使用不同应用技术的不同粘结剂的剪切和弯曲粘结强度;(2)确定剪切和弯曲粘结试验对这三种材料的排名是否相似;(3)确定弯曲试验产生的断裂表面是否有助于研究粘结剂界面区域内的失效情况。
对Scotchbond MP(SBMP)、Single Bond(SNGB)和Clearfil SE(CLSE)进行评估。每种材料制备16个样本进行粘结。其中8个样本用于剪切测试,另外8个样本用于弯曲粘结强度测试。粘结完成后,所有样本在37℃水中储存30天。使用正畸边缘丝环测量剪切粘结强度,使用四点弯曲装置测量弯曲强度。用于弯曲测试的样本由3mm×3mm×20mm的梁组成,在梁的中心垂直粘结了一块1mm厚的牙本质薄片。用显微硬度测试仪在一个牙本质-复合材料界面处进行压痕,作为诱导缺陷。在弯曲测试过程中,这个缺陷位于受拉表面。数据采用方差分析进行分析。使用扫描电子显微镜检查每个样本并确定其失效模式。确定每种材料以及两种测试方法总体的失效模式出现百分比。当失效位置存在不确定性时,使用电子能谱X射线分析来识别断裂表面上存在的元素。
每个测试组内粘结强度无显著差异(P>0.05),而两种测试方法之间存在显著差异(P<0.05)(剪切:SBMP = 21.2±4.0MPa,SNGB = 24.3±4.7MPa,CLSE = 24.6±4.4MPa;弯曲强度:SBMP = 34.6±9.3MPa,SNGB = 31.9±6.9MPa,CLSE = 34.3±4.7MPa)。剪切粘结测试样本大多在牙本质内失效(54.2%),其次是在粘结剂界面内失效(41.6%),在复合材料中失效(4.2%)。弯曲强度样本大多在粘结剂界面内失效(83.3%),其次是在复合材料中失效(16.7%)。在每个测试方法组中,所有三种粘结系统的粘结强度相似。失效模式分析显示两种测试方法之间存在显著差异(P<0.0001)。