De Munck Jan, Van Meerbeek Bart, Satoshi Inoue, Vargas Marcos, Yoshida Yasuhiro, Armstrong Steven, Lambrechts Paul, Vanherle Guido
Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Belgium.
Am J Dent. 2003 Dec;16(6):414-20.
To evaluate the bonding effectiveness of one- and two-step self-etch adhesives in comparison with a total-etch approach.
From 55 non-carious human third molars, mid-coronal dentin and enamel bur-cut surfaces were prepared. The bonding surfaces were treated strictly following the manufacturers' instructions with three one-step self-etch (all-in-one) adhesives, AQ bond, Reactmer and Xeno CF Bond; two two-step self-etch adhesives, experimental ABF and Clearfil SE Bond, one two-step total-etch adhesive, Prime & Bond NT, and one three-step total-etch adhesive, OptiBond FL. Composite built-ups were made using Z100. After storage overnight in 37 degrees C water, the bonded specimens were sectioned into rectangular slabs of approximately 2x2 mm width and 9 mm length. They were then trimmed into a round cross-sectional shape resulting in an interface area of approximately 1 mm2, and subsequently subjected to microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/minute. Differences in microTBS were determined for enamel and dentin using the Kruskal-Wallis test at P < 0.05.
The microTBS to enamel varied from 10.3 MPa for the one-step self-etch adhesive AQ bond to 49.5 MPa for the total-etch adhesive Prime & Bond NT. The microTBS to dentin varied from 15.5 MPa for the one-step self-etch adhesive Reactmer to 59.6 for the three-step total-etch adhesive OptiBond FL. The microTBS of the total-etch adhesives to enamel was significantly higher than that of the one-step self-etch adhesives. Comparing the dentin microTBS, only OptiBond FL performed significantly better than the one-step self-etch adhesives. Specimen failure during preparation occurred with each one-step adhesive, but more frequently when bonding to enamel than to dentin. Most one-step self-etch adhesives failed predominantly adhesively between the tooth substrate and the bonding layer in contrast to the two- and three-step adhesives that revealed generally more mixed adhesive-cohesive failures.
比较一步法和两步法自酸蚀粘结剂与全酸蚀方法的粘结效果。
从55颗无龋坏的人类第三磨牙制备牙冠中部牙本质和釉质的备洞表面。按照制造商说明,使用三种一步法自酸蚀(二合一)粘结剂AQ bond、Reactmer和Xeno CF Bond;两种两步法自酸蚀粘结剂实验性ABF和Clearfil SE Bond;一种两步法全酸蚀粘结剂Prime & Bond NT;以及一种三步法全酸蚀粘结剂OptiBond FL对粘结表面进行严格处理。使用Z100进行复合树脂充填。在37℃水中储存过夜后,将粘结标本切成宽约2×2mm、长9mm的长方形薄片。然后将其修整成圆形横截面形状,使界面面积约为1mm²,随后以1mm/分钟的十字头速度进行微拉伸粘结强度(microTBS)测试。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验确定牙釉质和牙本质中microTBS的差异,P<0.05。
一步法自酸蚀粘结剂AQ bond对牙釉质的microTBS为10.3MPa,全酸蚀粘结剂Prime & Bond NT对牙釉质的microTBS为49.5MPa。一步法自酸蚀粘结剂Reactmer对牙本质的microTBS为15.5MPa,三步法全酸蚀粘结剂OptiBond FL对牙本质的microTBS为59.6MPa。全酸蚀粘结剂对牙釉质的microTBS显著高于一步法自酸蚀粘结剂。比较牙本质的microTBS,只有OptiBond FL的性能明显优于一步法自酸蚀粘结剂。每种一步法粘结剂在制备过程中均出现标本失败情况,但粘结到牙釉质时比粘结到牙本质时更频繁。与两步法和三步法粘结剂相比,大多数一步法自酸蚀粘结剂主要在牙齿基质与粘结层之间发生粘结性失败,而两步法和三步法粘结剂通常显示出更多的混合粘结-内聚性失败。