Cura Cenk, Saraçoglu Ahmet, Cötert H Serdar
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.
J Prosthet Dent. 2003 Apr;89(4):394-9. doi: 10.1067/mpr.2003.58.
The use of bonding agents in the luting procedure for porcelain laminate restorations to enamel is not clear.
This study evaluated the shear bond strength differences between an enamel-luting composite and a heat-pressed ceramic with 6 different bonding systems.
Seventy standardized heat-pressed IPS Empress ceramic discs (4-mm diameter, 3-mm height) were prepared. A vertical planar enamel-bonding surface was prepared on the buccal or lingual enamel of 70 freshly extracted sound human molars and premolars. The teeth were oriented to maintain a parallel relationship between the bonding plane and the shear loading axis of a universal testing machine. Tooth specimens were divided into 7 groups (n=10) comprising equal numbers of molars and premolars. The enamel surfaces of specimens in groups 1 through 6 were prepared with 1 of 6 bonding agents (Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus, Heliobond, PQ1, SE Bond, Prime&Bond NT, and Prompt L-Pop). Finally, the specimens were luted to the ceramic discs with the composite cement (Opal Luting Composite). Ceramic discs in the seventh group (Control) were luted to the etched enamel with the composite cement without using bonding material. Enamel-ceramic specimens were kept in distilled water at room temperature for 30 days after cementation. All specimens were shear loaded axially in a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.05 mm/min until fracture. Shear bond strength was measured and recorded for each group in MPa. To determine the statistical significance of the differences between the mean shear bond strength values, a 1-way analysis of variance was used (alpha=.05). Post-hoc multiple comparisons were made with Duncan's multiple range analysis. Fractured surfaces of each specimen were also inspected with a stereomicroscope to evaluate failure modes.
A 1-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences between the test groups (P=.00). Bond strength values (MPa) from the highest to the lowest were as follows: Prompt L-Pop, 25.46 +/- 5.6; Prime&Bond NT, 18.99 +/- 4.93; Heliobond, 17.28 +/- 4.0; SE Bond, 16.21 +/- 2.6; PQ1, 15.60 +/- 2.8; Scotchbond MPP, 14.82 +/- 2.4; and Control, 10.55 +/- 1.6. Duncan's multiple range post hoc analysis exhibited significant differences between the control group and the adhesive bonding agent groups (P<.05). There were also significant differences between the bonding agent groups (P<.05). Prompt L-Pop showed the highest bond strength values.
Within the limitations of this study, bonding agents appear to have a strengthening effect on the shear bond strengths of the enamel/composite/porcelain interface of the materials tested. Bonding agents used in this study showed similar bond strength values except for Prompt L-Pop, which demonstrated the highest bond strength values.
在瓷贴面修复体与牙釉质的粘结过程中，粘结剂的使用情况尚不清楚。
本研究评估了一种牙釉质粘结复合材料与热压陶瓷在6种不同粘结系统下的剪切粘结强度差异。
制备70个标准化的热压IPS Empress陶瓷圆盘（直径4毫米，高3毫米）。在70颗新鲜拔除的健康人磨牙和前磨牙的颊侧或舌侧牙釉质上制备垂直平面的牙釉质粘结表面。将牙齿定向，以保持粘结平面与万能试验机的剪切加载轴之间的平行关系。牙齿标本分为7组（n = 10），每组包含数量相等的磨牙和前磨牙。第1组至第6组标本的牙釉质表面用6种粘结剂中的1种进行处理（Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus、Heliobond、PQ1、SE Bond、Prime&Bond NT和Prompt L-Pop）。最后，用复合树脂水门汀（Opal Luting Composite）将标本粘结到陶瓷圆盘上。第七组（对照组）的陶瓷圆盘用复合树脂水门汀粘结到酸蚀后的牙釉质上，不使用粘结材料。粘结后，牙釉质-陶瓷标本在室温下的蒸馏水中保存30天。所有标本在万能试验机上以0.05毫米/分钟的十字头速度进行轴向剪切加载，直至断裂。测量并记录每组的剪切粘结强度，单位为兆帕（MPa）。为确定平均剪切粘结强度值之间差异的统计学显著性，采用单因素方差分析（α = 0.05）。采用邓肯多重极差分析进行事后多重比较。还用体视显微镜检查每个标本的断裂表面，以评估失效模式。
单因素方差分析显示各试验组之间存在显著差异（P = 0.00）。粘结强度值（MPa）从高到低依次为：Prompt L-Pop，25.46±5.6；Prime&Bond NT，18.99±4.93；Heliobond，17.28±4.0；SE Bond，16.21±2.6；PQ1，15.60±2.8；Scotchbond MPP，14.82±2.4；对照组，10.55±1.6。邓肯多重极差事后分析显示对照组与粘结剂组之间存在显著差异（P < 0.05）。粘结剂组之间也存在显著差异（P < 0.05）。Prompt L-Pop显示出最高粘结强度值。
在本研究的局限性范围内，粘结剂似乎对所测试材料的牙釉质/复合材料/陶瓷界面的剪切粘结强度有增强作用。本研究中使用的粘结剂除Prompt L-Pop显示出最高粘结强度值外，其余粘结强度值相似。
