Owens Barry M, Johnson William W, Harris Edward F
Department of Restorative Dentistry, University of Tennessee, College of Dentistry, Memphis, TN 38103, USA.
Oper Dent. 2006 Jan-Feb;31(1):60-7. doi: 10.2341/04-185.
This study evaluated microleakage in vitro of self-etch and multi-step, total-etch adhesive systems. Ninety-six extracted non-carious human molars were randomly assigned to eight groups (n=12) and restored with different adhesive systems: Optibond Solo Plus, iBond, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Xeno III, Simplicity, Nano-Bond, Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and Touch & Bond. Each group was treated following the manufacturer's instructions. Class V cavities were prepared on the facial or lingual surfaces of each tooth with coronal margins in enamel and apical margins in cementum (dentin). The teeth were restored with Z-100 resin composite. After polishing with Sof-Lex disks, the teeth were thermocycled for 1000 cycles and coated with nail varnish to within 1.0 mm of the restoration. The teeth were stained in 1% methylene blue dye for 24 hours and sectioned from the facial to lingual surface. Dye penetration (microleakage) was examined with a 20x binocular microscope. Enamel and dentin margin leakage was scored on a 0 to 3 ordinal scale. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis Analysis of Variance and Mann-Whitney U tests. Comparison of the adhesive groups at the enamel margin revealed: 1) Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose exhibited significantly less leakage than the other adhesive groups (except iBond); 2) among the self-etch adhesive groups, iBond exhibited significantly less leakage than Nano-Bond and 3) the other adhesive groups clustered intermediately. In contrast, there were no significant differences among the adhesive groups when the dentin margin was evaluated. A Wilcoxin signed rank test showed significantly less leakage at the enamel margins compared to the dentin margins of the eight adhesive systems tested. All data were submitted to statistical analysis at p<0.05 level of significance.
本研究评估了自酸蚀和多步骤全酸蚀粘结系统的体外微渗漏情况。96颗拔除的无龋人类磨牙被随机分为8组(每组n = 12),并用不同的粘结系统进行修复:Optibond Solo Plus、iBond、Adper Prompt L-Pop、Xeno III、Simplicity、Nano-Bond、Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose和Touch & Bond。每组均按照制造商的说明进行处理。在每颗牙齿的颊面或舌面制备V类洞,洞缘冠方位于釉质,根尖方位于牙骨质(牙本质)。用Z-100树脂复合材料修复牙齿。用Sof-Lex盘片抛光后,对牙齿进行1000次热循环,并用指甲油涂覆至修复体边缘1.0 mm范围内。将牙齿置于1%亚甲蓝染料中染色24小时,然后从颊面至舌面进行切片。用20倍双目显微镜检查染料渗透情况(微渗漏)。釉质和牙本质边缘渗漏情况按0至3级顺序评分。使用Kruskal-Wallis方差分析和Mann-Whitney U检验对数据进行分析。釉质边缘粘结剂组的比较结果显示:1)Adper Scotchbond Multi-Purpose的渗漏明显少于其他粘结剂组(iBond除外);2)在自酸蚀粘结剂组中,iBond的渗漏明显少于Nano-Bond;3)其他粘结剂组渗漏情况居中。相比之下,评估牙本质边缘时,各粘结剂组之间无显著差异。Wilcoxin符号秩检验显示,与所测试的8种粘结系统的牙本质边缘相比,釉质边缘的渗漏明显更少。所有数据均在p<0.05的显著性水平下进行统计分析。