Suppr超能文献

使用两种测试方法比较四种自酸蚀粘结系统与牙釉质的微剪切粘结强度。

Comparison of microshear bond strengths of four self-etching bonding systems to enamel using two test methods.

作者信息

Foong J, Lee K, Nguyen C, Tang G, Austin D, Ch'ng C, Burrow M F, Thomas D L

机构信息

School of Dental Science, The University of Melbourne, Victoria.

出版信息

Aust Dent J. 2006 Sep;51(3):252-7. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2006.tb00438.x.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Recent advances in enamel and dentine adhesive technology have resulted in the emergence of many new adhesive systems. Self-etching bonding systems do not require a separate etching step and the newest systems are the "all-in-one" systems which combine etching, priming and bonding into a single application. This study reports laboratory enamel microshear bond strengths of a self-etching priming and three all-in-one systems and also evaluates two different microshear bond test methods.

METHODS

One hundred and nineteen enamel specimens were bonded (0.8 mm diameter) with either Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray), Xeno III (Dentsply), G Bond (GC) or One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama) using Palfique Estelite resin composite and stored in 37 degrees Celsius water for seven days. The microshear bond test method used either a blade or wire to apply the shear stress. Results were analysed with one-way ANOVA and post hoc (Tukey) multiple comparison analysis.

RESULTS

Clearfil Protect Bond demonstrated higher and more consistent bond strengths than Xeno III, G Bond or One-Up Bond F. The wire method showed much greater reliability in results, with a coefficient of variation half that of the blade method.

CONCLUSIONS

All-in-one adhesives seem to be less reliable than the two-step self-etching priming adhesive when bonding to enamel. Test method can significantly affect results in the microshear bond test method.

摘要

背景

牙釉质和牙本质粘结技术的最新进展导致了许多新型粘结系统的出现。自酸蚀粘结系统不需要单独的酸蚀步骤,而最新的系统是“一体化”系统,即将酸蚀、底漆涂布和粘结合并为一个步骤。本研究报告了一种自酸蚀底漆和三种一体化系统的实验室牙釉质微剪切粘结强度,并评估了两种不同的微剪切粘结测试方法。

方法

使用Palfique Estelite树脂复合材料,将119个牙釉质标本(直径0.8毫米)分别与Clearfil Protect Bond(可乐丽)、Xeno III(登士柏)、G Bond(GC)或One-Up Bond F(德山)粘结,并在37摄氏度的水中储存7天。微剪切粘结测试方法使用刀片或金属丝施加剪切应力。结果采用单因素方差分析和事后(Tukey)多重比较分析。

结果

Clearfil Protect Bond显示出比Xeno III、G Bond或One-Up Bond F更高且更一致的粘结强度。金属丝法的结果显示出更高的可靠性,其变异系数是刀片法的一半。

结论

在与牙釉质粘结时,一体化粘结剂似乎不如两步自酸蚀底漆粘结剂可靠。测试方法会显著影响微剪切粘结测试方法的结果。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验