Cardoso Marcio V, Coutinho Eduardo, Ermis R Banu, Poitevin André, Van Landuyt Kirsten, De Munck Jan, Carvalho Rubens C R, Van Meerbeek Bart
Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, 3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Dent Mater. 2008 Apr;24(4):492-501. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2007.04.011. Epub 2007 Aug 1.
The current trend toward minimal-invasive dentistry has introduced innovative techniques for cavity preparation. Chemical vapor deposition (CVD) and laser-irradiation technology have been employed as an alternative to the common use of regular burs in high-speed turbines.
The purpose of this study was to assess the influence of alternative techniques for cavity preparation on the bonding effectiveness of different adhesives to dentin, and to evaluate the morphological characteristics of dentin prepared with those techniques.
One etch&rinse adhesive (OptiBond FL, Kerr) and three self-etch systems (Adper Prompt L-Pop, 3M ESPE; Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray; Clearfil S3 Bond, Kuraray) were applied on dentin prepared with a regular bur in a turbine, with a CVD bur in a turbine, with a CVD tip in ultrasound and with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. The micro-tensile bond strength (microTBS) was determined after storage in water for 24h at 37 degrees C, and morphological evaluation was performed by means of field-emission-gun scanning electron microscopy (Feg-SEM).
Feg-SEM evaluation revealed different morphological features on the dentin surface after the usage of both the conventional and alternative techniques for cavity preparation, more specifically regarding smear-layer thickness and surface roughness. CVD bur-cut, CVD ultra-sonoabraded and laser-irradiated dentin resulted in lower microTBSs than conventionally bur-cut dentin, irrespective of the adhesive employed.
The techniques, such as CVD diamond-bur cutting, CVD diamond ultra-sonoabrasion and laser-irradiation, used for cavity preparation may affect the bonding effectiveness of adhesives to dentin, irrespective of their acidity or approach.
当前微创牙科的趋势引入了用于窝洞制备的创新技术。化学气相沉积（CVD）和激光辐照技术已被用作高速涡轮机中常规车针常用方法的替代方法。
本研究的目的是评估窝洞制备替代技术对不同粘合剂与牙本质粘结效果的影响，并评估用这些技术制备的牙本质的形态特征。
将一种酸蚀冲洗粘合剂（OptiBond FL， Kerr）和三种自酸蚀系统（Adper Prompt L-Pop，3M ESPE；Clearfil SE Bond，可乐丽；Clearfil S3 Bond，可乐丽）应用于用涡轮机中的常规车针、涡轮机中的CVD车针、超声中的CVD尖端和Er,Cr:YSGG激光制备的牙本质上。在37℃水中储存24小时后测定微拉伸粘结强度（microTBS），并通过场发射枪扫描电子显微镜（Feg-SEM）进行形态学评估。
Feg-SEM评估显示，在使用传统和替代窝洞制备技术后，牙本质表面具有不同的形态特征，更具体地说是关于玷污层厚度和表面粗糙度。无论使用何种粘合剂，CVD车针切割、CVD超声磨除和激光辐照的牙本质的microTBS均低于传统车针切割的牙本质。
用于窝洞制备的技术，如CVD金刚石车针切割、CVD金刚石超声磨除和激光辐照，可能会影响粘合剂与牙本质的粘结效果，无论其酸度或方法如何。
