Cehreli Zafer C, Kecik Defne, Kocadereli Ilken
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):573-9; quiz 625-6. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.12.027.
Despite many published articles on the bond strength of self-etching primers and adhesives in the restorative dentistry literature, there have been relatively few laboratory studies of the bond strength of new orthodontic materials, and, in most of these published studies, investigators used various methodologic approaches during different stages of the in vitro testing procedures. The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of 4 self-etching primer and adhesive formulations, a nonrinse conditioner and acetone adhesive system, and a conventional system.
The self-etching products tested were Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Dental, Osaka, Japan), FL Bond (Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan), and One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan); the nonrinse conditioner and acetone-based adhesive system was NRC and Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply International, Konstanz, Germany); the conventional acid-etch and bond system was Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Brackets were bonded to intact bovine mandibular incisors (n = 7 per group) according to each manufacturer's recommendations. The specimens were first stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and then subjected to thermal cycling in deionized water at 5 degrees C +/- 2 degrees C to 55 degrees C +/- 2 degrees C for 1000 cycles. To facilitate degradation of bonds, the specimens were further stored in distilled water for 6 weeks before debonding procedures.
The shear bond strengths of the 5 experimental groups were all significantly lower (P < .05) than that of the control group (Prompt L-Pop, 1.72 +/- 0.13 MPa; Clearfil SE Bond, 1.75 +/- 0.19 MPa; FL Bond, 1.71 +/- 0.22 MPa; One-Up Bond F, 1.77 +/- 0.14 MPa; control, 10.5 +/- 0.86 MPa) but not different from one another (P > .05).
The tested self-etching primer and adhesive systems produced bond strength values much lower than that of the control product. Clinically, these products might not be suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding in terms of the shear bond strength achieved after thermal cycling and water storage.
尽管在修复牙科文献中有许多关于自酸蚀底漆和粘结剂粘结强度的文章,但关于新型正畸材料粘结强度的实验室研究相对较少,并且在大多数已发表的研究中,研究人员在体外测试程序的不同阶段使用了各种方法。本研究的目的是比较4种自酸蚀底漆和粘结剂配方、一种免冲洗调节剂和丙酮粘结系统以及一种传统系统的剪切粘结强度。
所测试的自酸蚀产品有Prompt L-Pop(德国3M ESPE公司,塞费尔德)、Clearfil SE Bond(日本可乐丽牙科,大阪)、FL Bond(日本松风牙科,京都)和One-Up Bond F(日本德山,东京);免冲洗调节剂和丙酮基粘结系统是NRC和Prime&Bond NT(德国登士柏国际公司,康斯坦茨);传统的酸蚀和粘结系统是Transbond XT(美国3M Unitek公司,蒙罗维亚,加利福尼亚)。根据每个制造商的建议,将托槽粘结到完整的牛下颌切牙上(每组n = 7)。标本首先在37℃的去离子水中储存24小时,然后在5℃±2℃至55℃±2℃的去离子水中进行1000次热循环。为了促进粘结的降解,在进行脱粘程序之前,将标本进一步在蒸馏水中储存6周。
5个实验组的剪切粘结强度均显著低于对照组(P < 0.05)(Prompt L-Pop,1.72±0.13 MPa;Clearfil SE Bond,1.75±0.19 MPa;FL Bond,1.71±0.22 MPa;One-Up Bond F,1.77±0.14 MPa;对照组,10.5±0.86 MPa),但彼此之间无差异(P > 0.05)。
所测试的自酸蚀底漆和粘结系统产生的粘结强度值远低于对照产品。临床上,就热循环和水储存后获得的剪切粘结强度而言,这些产品可能不适合正畸托槽粘结。