Cal Ebru, Türkün L Sebnem, Türkün Murat, Toman Muhittin, Toksavul Suna
Department of Prosthodontics, School of Dentistry, Ege University, 35100 Bornova-Izmir, Turkey.
J Dent. 2006 Jul;34(6):372-80. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2005.08.004. Epub 2005 Nov 9.
Effect of a dentin adhesive system containing antibacterial monomer-MDPB (Clearfil Protect Bond) on the shear bond strength of all-ceramic-IPS Empress 2 restorations luted with three different dual-polymerizing systems (Variolink 2, RelyX ARC and Panavia F 2.0) to dentin was investigated.
One hundred and eight all-ceramic discs (2 x 3mm; IPS Empress 2) were fabricated and ultrasonically cleaned. The buccal surfaces of 108 non-carious extracted human premolars were flattened to expose dentin and subsequently polished with 600-grit wet silicon carbide paper. Three dual-polymerizing luting systems had test groups and control groups consisting of 18 samples each. For the test groups Clearfil Protect Bond was applied to the exposed dentin surfaces. Control groups received the original bonding procedures of each adhesive system. After the all-ceramic samples were luted to the teeth, thermocycling was performed 5000 times. Shear bond strengths were tested using Shimadzu Universal Testing Machine until failure. Analysis of fractured dentin surfaces were performed using Optical Microscope at x10 and x1000 magnifications and the images were analyzed with Image Analyzer. Data was analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni test at a significance level of p<0.05.
Mean shear bond strength data of the groups in MPa were; Variolink: 20.45+/-4.75, Variolink+Clearfil Protect Bond:29.32+/-2.37, RelyX ARC:18.82+/-3.19, RelyX ARC+Clearfil Protect Bond:25.58+/-4.05, Panavia F 2.0:17.11+/-2.98, Panavia F 2.0+Clearfil Protect Bond:24.40+/-7.46. Application of the antibacterial adhesive increased the shear bond strengths of all three dual-polymerizing systems to dentin (p=0.00). The surface analysis showed that most of the specimens showed the adhesive failure mode between the dentin and the composite luting agent interface.
The antibacterial adhesive system Clearfil Protect Bond can be safely used to prevent the potential risk of complications resulting from bacterial activity regardless of affecting the bond strength of IPS Empress 2 restorations luted with the dual-polimerizing systems used in this study.
研究含抗菌单体-MDPB的牙本质粘结系统(Clearfil Protect Bond)对全瓷-IPS Empress 2修复体与牙本质粘结的剪切粘结强度的影响,该修复体用三种不同的双重聚合系统(Variolink 2、RelyX ARC和Panavia F 2.0)粘结。
制作108个全瓷圆盘(2×3mm;IPS Empress 2)并进行超声清洗。将108颗非龋性拔除的人前磨牙的颊面磨平以暴露牙本质,随后用600目湿碳化硅砂纸抛光。三种双重聚合粘结系统各有试验组和对照组,每组18个样本。试验组将Clearfil Protect Bond应用于暴露的牙本质表面。对照组采用每种粘结系统的原始粘结程序。将全瓷样本粘结到牙齿上后,进行5000次热循环。使用岛津万能试验机测试剪切粘结强度直至破坏。使用光学显微镜在10倍和1000倍放大倍数下对断裂的牙本质表面进行分析,并用图像分析仪分析图像。数据采用单因素方差分析和Bonferroni检验进行分析,显著性水平为p<0.05。
各实验组以MPa为单位的平均剪切粘结强度数据如下:Variolink:20.45±4.75,Variolink+Clearfil Protect Bond:29.32±2.37,RelyX ARC:18.82±3.19,RelyX ARC+Clearfil Protect Bond:25.58±4.05,Panavia F 2.0:17.11±2.98,Panavia F 2.0+Clearfil Protect Bond:24.40±7.46。抗菌粘结剂的应用增加了所有三种双重聚合系统与牙本质的剪切粘结强度(p=0.00)。表面分析表明,大多数标本在牙本质与复合粘结剂界面之间呈现粘结失败模式。
抗菌粘结系统Clearfil Protect Bond可以安全使用,以预防细菌活动导致的并发症的潜在风险,而不影响本研究中使用的双重聚合系统粘结的IPS Empress 2修复体的粘结强度。