Heintze Siegward D, Forjanic Monika, Roulet François-Jean
Research and Development, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein.
J Adhes Dent. 2007 Aug;9(4):359-69.
Using an optical sensor, to automatically evaluate the marginal seal of restorations placed with 21 adhesive systems of all four adhesive categories in cylindrical cavities of bovine dentin applying different outcome variables, and to evaluate their discriminatory power.
Twenty-one adhesive systems were evaluated: three 3-step etch-and-rinse systems, three 2-step etch-and-rinse systems, five 2-step self-etching systems, and ten 1-step self-etching systems. All adhesives were applied in cylindrical cavities in bovine dentin together with Tetric Ceram (n=8). In the control group, no adhesive system was used. After 24 h of storage in water at 37 degrees C, the surface was polished with 4000-grit SiC paper, and epoxy resin replicas were produced. An optical sensor (FRT MicroProf) created 100 profiles of the restoration margin, and an algorithm detected gaps and calculated their depths and widths. The following evaluation criteria were used: percentage of specimens without gaps, the percentage of gap-free profiles in relation to all profiles per specimen, mean gap width, mean gap depth, largest gap, modified marginal integrity index MI. The statistical analysis was carried out on log-transformed data for all variables with ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test for multiple comparisons. The correlation between the variables was tested with regression analysis, and the pooled data accordingto the four adhesive categories were compared by applying the Mann-Whitney nonparametric test (p < 0.05).
For all the variables that characterized the marginal adaptation, there was a great variation from material to material. In general, the etch-and-rinse adhesive systems demonstrated the best marginal adaptation, followed by the 2-step self-etching and the 1-step self-etching adhesives; the latter showed the highest variability in test results between materials and within the same material. The only exception to this rule was Xeno IV, which showed a marginal adaptation that was comparable to that of the best 3-step etch-and-rinse systems. Except for the variables "largest gap" and "mean gap depth", all the other variables had a similar ability to discriminate between materials. Pooled data according to the four adhesive categories revealed statistically significant differences between the one-step self-etching systems and the other three systems as well as between two-step self-etching and three-step etch-and-rinse systems.
With one exception, the one-step self-etching systems yielded the poorest marginal adaptation results and the highest variability between materials and within the same material. Except for the variable "largest gap", the percentage of continuous margin, mean gap width, mean gap depth, and the marginal integrity index MI were closely related to one another and showed--with the exception of "mean gap depth"--similar discriminatory power.
使用光学传感器，在牛牙本质圆柱型腔中应用21种属于所有四种粘结剂类别的粘结系统，通过不同的结果变量自动评估修复体的边缘密合性，并评估它们的区分能力。
评估了21种粘结系统：三种三步酸蚀冲洗系统、三种两步酸蚀冲洗系统、五种两步自酸蚀系统和十种一步自酸蚀系统。所有粘结剂与Tetric Ceram一起应用于牛牙本质的圆柱型腔中（n = 8）。在对照组中，未使用粘结系统。在37℃水中储存24小时后，用4000目碳化硅砂纸对表面进行抛光，并制作环氧树脂复制品。一个光学传感器（FRT MicroProf）创建了修复体边缘的100个轮廓，一种算法检测间隙并计算其深度和宽度。使用了以下评估标准：无间隙标本的百分比、每个标本中无间隙轮廓相对于所有轮廓的百分比、平均间隙宽度、平均间隙深度、最大间隙、改良边缘完整性指数MI。对所有变量的对数转换数据进行统计分析，采用方差分析和事后Tukey多重比较检验。通过回归分析检验变量之间的相关性，并应用Mann-Whitney非参数检验比较根据四种粘结剂类别汇总的数据（p < 0.05）。
对于所有表征边缘适应性的变量，材料之间存在很大差异。一般来说，酸蚀冲洗粘结系统表现出最佳的边缘适应性，其次是两步自酸蚀和一步自酸蚀粘结剂；后者在材料之间以及同一材料内的测试结果中显示出最高的变异性。该规则的唯一例外是Xeno IV，其边缘适应性与最佳的三步酸蚀冲洗系统相当。除了“最大间隙”和“平均间隙深度”变量外，所有其他变量在区分材料方面具有相似的能力。根据四种粘结剂类别汇总的数据显示，一步自酸蚀系统与其他三种系统之间以及两步自酸蚀和三步酸蚀冲洗系统之间存在统计学上的显著差异。
除一个例外，一步自酸蚀系统产生的边缘适应性结果最差，材料之间以及同一材料内的变异性最高。除了“最大间隙”变量外，连续边缘的百分比、平均间隙宽度、平均间隙深度和边缘完整性指数MI彼此密切相关，并且除了“平均间隙深度”外，显示出相似的区分能力。
