Saboia Vicente de Paulo Aragão, Almeida Paulo César, Rittet André V, Swift Edward J, Pimenta Luiz André Freire
School of Pharmacy, Dentistry and Nursing, Federal University of Ceard, Fortaleza, Brazil.
Oper Dent. 2006 Sep-Oct;31(5):530-5. doi: 10.2341/05-119.
This pilot study evaluated the effect of removing acid-etch-exposed dentin collagen on the clinical performance of composite restorations of noncarious cervical lesions placed using 2 different adhesive systems. Fifty-six restorations were placed in 14 subjects, each subject receiving at least 4 restorations. No cavity preparation or mechanical retention form was used. The variables tested were: 1) dentin treatment prior to application of the adhesive (acid-etch only vs acid-etch and collagen removal) and 2) type of adhesive (acetone- vs ethanol-based). For the acid-etch only groups, enamel and dentin were etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds, rinsed and blot dried. Prime & Bond 2.1 (Dentsply Caulk) or Single Bond (3M ESPE) was applied and light-cured according to the manufacturer's instructions. For the acid-etch and collagen removal groups, the enamel and dentin were etched and rinsed in the same manner and a 10% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution was applied for 60 seconds and rinsed before adhesive application. Filtek Z-250 (3M ESPE) was applied to all specimens and light-cured according to the manufacturer's instructions, and the restorations were finished and polished immediately. The restorations were evaluated for pre- and post-operative sensitivity, retention, marginal staining and secondary caries at baseline, 12 and 24 months after placement, using modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon statistical tests (p=0.05). At 24 months, the retention rates for Prime & Bond 2.1 with and without NaOCl pretreatment were 80% and 63%, respectively. The corresponding retention rates for Single Bond were 70% and 90%. Marginal staining was minimal. Statistical analyses revealed no significant differences at any time interval between groups for retention or marginal staining. No post-operative sensitivity or secondary caries was detected during the study.
这项初步研究评估了去除酸蚀暴露的牙本质胶原蛋白对使用两种不同粘结系统放置的非龋性颈部病变复合树脂修复体临床性能的影响。在14名受试者中放置了56个修复体，每名受试者至少接受4个修复体。未使用窝洞预备或机械固位形式。测试的变量为：1）粘结剂应用前的牙本质处理（仅酸蚀与酸蚀并去除胶原蛋白）和2）粘结剂类型（丙酮基与乙醇基）。对于仅酸蚀组，用37%磷酸蚀刻釉质和牙本质15秒，冲洗并吸干。按照制造商说明应用Prime & Bond 2.1（登士柏卡沃）或Single Bond（3M ESPE）并光固化。对于酸蚀并去除胶原蛋白组，以相同方式蚀刻和冲洗釉质和牙本质，在应用粘结剂前用10%次氯酸钠（NaOCl）溶液处理60秒并冲洗。将Filtek Z - 250（3M ESPE）应用于所有标本并按照制造商说明光固化，修复体立即完成并抛光。使用改良的美国公共卫生服务（USPHS）标准在基线、放置后12个月和24个月对修复体进行术前和术后敏感性、固位、边缘染色和继发龋的评估。使用Kruskal - Wallis和Wilcoxon统计检验（p = 0.05）分析数据。在24个月时，经NaOCl预处理和未预处理的Prime & Bond 2.1的固位率分别为80%和63%。Single Bond的相应固位率为70%和90%。边缘染色极少。统计分析显示，在任何时间间隔，各组之间在固位或边缘染色方面均无显著差异。在研究期间未检测到术后敏感性或继发龋。
