Mallmann André, Zovico Fábio, Soares Maxnuck, Placido Eliane, Ferrari Marco, Cardoso Paulo Eduardo Capel
Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Av. Prof. Lineu Prestes, 2227 São Paulo, Brazil.
J Adhes Dent. 2003 Summer;5(2):121-7.
To evaluate the bond strength of a self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond) and a single-bottle (Excite) adhesive system using two cavity configurations (C-factors 5 and 1).
Class I cavities (3 x 4 x 2.5 mm) were prepared in 28 extracted human molars using diamond burs under water cooling. Teeth were divided into 4 groups: G1: Excite, C-factor 5; G2: Excite, C-factor 1; G3: Clearfil, C-factor 5; G4: Clearfil, C-factor 1. To determine C-factor 5, systems were applied to all cavity walls according to the manufacturers' instructions (5 bonded, 1 unbonded). For C-factor 1, lateral walls were isolated using nail varnish, and adhesive systems were only applied to the pulpal floor (5 unbonded, 1 bonded). Cavities were restored using Tetric Ceram composite resin (Ivoclar/Vivadent), and bulk light cured for 40 s (500 mW/cm2). Teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 degrees C, and then sectioned using a diamond disk, yielding stick-shaped specimens with a bonded area of approximately 0.8 mm2. Specimens were submitted to the microtensile bond test at a rate of 1 mm/min speed in a universal testing machine.
Resin-dentin bond strengths (MPa) were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05) [number of specimens]: G1 = 35.8b [43]; G2 = 48.9a [55]; G3 = 45.9a [60]; G4 = 49.0a [53]. There was no statistically significant difference between adhesive systems for C-factor 1. For C-factor 5, Clearfil SE Bond produced higher values when compared to the other group.
Changes in C-factor only affected the total-etch adhesive system tested. This may be a result of the different filler volume in the self-etching system, and not of the bonding technique itself.
使用两种洞形结构（C因素为5和1）评估一种自酸蚀粘结剂（Clearfil SE Bond）和一种单瓶粘结剂系统（Excite）的粘结强度。
在28颗拔除的人磨牙上，使用水冷的金刚石车针制备I类洞（3×4×2.5毫米）。牙齿被分为4组：G1：Excite，C因素为5；G2：Excite，C因素为1；G3：Clearfil，C因素为5；G4：Clearfil，C因素为1。为确定C因素为5时的情况，按照制造商的说明将粘结剂系统应用于所有洞壁（5个粘结，1个未粘结）。对于C因素为1时，用指甲油隔离侧壁，粘结剂系统仅应用于髓室底（5个未粘结，1个粘结）。用Tetric Ceram复合树脂（Ivoclar/Vivadent）修复洞形，并整体光固化40秒（500毫瓦/平方厘米）。牙齿在37摄氏度的蒸馏水中储存24小时，然后用金刚石切割盘切片，得到粘结面积约为0.8平方毫米的棒状标本。在万能试验机上以1毫米/分钟的速度对标本进行微拉伸粘结测试。
树脂-牙本质粘结强度（兆帕）进行方差分析和Tukey检验（p<0.05）[标本数量]：G1 = 35.8b [43]；G2 = 48.9a [55]；G3 = 45.9a [60]；G4 = 49.0a [53]。对于C因素为1的情况，粘结剂系统之间无统计学显著差异。对于C因素为5的情况，与其他组相比，Clearfil SE Bond产生的值更高。
C因素的变化仅影响所测试的全酸蚀粘结剂系统。这可能是自酸蚀系统中不同填料体积的结果，而非粘结技术本身的结果。
