Cardoso Paulo Eduardo Capel, Meloncini Marco Antônio, Placido Eliane, Lima Janaína De Oliveira, Tavares Andréa Urbano
Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2003 Jul-Aug;28(4):388-94.
The difficulty with comparing data obtained from different research centers calls for the standardization of laboratory procedures. This in vitro study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive systems--a self-etching system, Etch&Prime 3.0 and a one-bottle total-etch system, Single Bond--using two methods of load application (orthodontic edge wire loop and knife-edge blade). The hypothesis of substrate influence on the results obtained for both tests was also investigated. Twenty-four recently extracted human teeth were embedded in PVC tubes using acrylic resin and divided into two groups (n=12). A proximal surface of each tooth was wet-ground flat to expose dentin. Etch&Prime 3.0 and Single Bond adhesive systems were applied according to the manufacturers' instructions, and cone-shaped restorations were then built using Z100 resin composite. After storage in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, the specimens were submitted to SBS testing using an orthodontic edge wire loop. The same teeth were again embedded in PVC tubes using acrylic resin and the other proximal surface was wet-ground flat to expose dentin. The specimens were prepared as explained above, and after storage in distilled water under the same previous conditions, they were submitted to SBS testing using a knife-edge blade. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests were performed to determine any statistically significant differences among testing conditions. Results indicated that SBS values obtained for Etch&Prime 3.0 were significantly lower than Single Bond for both methods of load application (p<0.001). Regarding the load application method, statistically significant higher values (p<0.01) were obtained for Etch&Prime 3.0 when the knife-edge blade was used, whereas, no significant difference was observed between the two methods for Single Bond. There was a significant correlation between the bond strength values obtained on the same tooth (p<0.05). SEM examination found that Etch&Prime 3.0 demonstrated narrower tags than Single Bond. Moreover, the peritubular dentin was not adequately decalcified when Etch&Prime 3.0 was used.
比较来自不同研究中心的数据存在困难，这就需要规范实验室程序。这项体外研究比较了两种粘结系统的剪切粘结强度（SBS）——一种自酸蚀系统Etch&Prime 3.0和一种单瓶装全酸蚀系统Single Bond——使用两种加载方法（正畸边缘丝环和刀刃）。还研究了底物对两种测试结果的影响这一假设。将24颗近期拔除的人牙用丙烯酸树脂嵌入PVC管中，分为两组（n = 12）。每颗牙的近中面湿磨平整以暴露牙本质。按照制造商的说明应用Etch&Prime 3.0和Single Bond粘结系统，然后用Z100树脂复合材料制作锥形修复体。在37℃蒸馏水中储存24小时后，使用正畸边缘丝环对标本进行SBS测试。同样的牙齿再次用丙烯酸树脂嵌入PVC管中，另一个近中面湿磨平整以暴露牙本质。标本按上述方法制备，在与之前相同的条件下于蒸馏水中储存后，使用刀刃对其进行SBS测试。进行双向方差分析和Tukey检验以确定测试条件之间是否存在任何统计学上的显著差异。结果表明，对于两种加载方法，Etch&Prime 3.0获得的SBS值均显著低于Single Bond（p < 0.001）。关于加载方法，使用刀刃时Etch&Prime 3.0获得的统计学上显著更高的值（p < 0.01），而对于Single Bond，两种方法之间未观察到显著差异。同一颗牙上获得的粘结强度值之间存在显著相关性（p < 0.05）。扫描电子显微镜检查发现，Etch&Prime 3.0显示的标签比Single Bond更窄。此外，使用Etch&Prime 3.0时，管周牙本质脱钙不充分。
