Pongprueksa Pong, Kuphasuk Watcharaporn, Senawongse Pisol
Department of Operative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mahidol University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Oper Dent. 2007 Sep-Oct;32(5):466-75. doi: 10.2341/06-132.
This study evaluated the effect of an unfilled-adhesive resin (Adper Single Bond) and a filled-adhesive resin (Adper Single Bond 2) with and without a low viscosity resin (Filtek Flow) as an elastic cavity wall on marginal leakage and dentin microtensile bond strength in Class V composite restorations under unloaded and loaded conditions.
V-shaped cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 56 premolars lined with unfilled (Groups 1 and 3) or filled (Groups 2 and 4) adhesives with (Groups 3 and 4) and without (Groups 1 and 2) a low viscosity resin and restored with a resin composite. The restored teeth in each group were divided into two sub-groups for unloaded and loaded conditions with 50N loading force for 250,000 cycles parallel to the long-axis of the tooth. Five specimens from each group were cut bucco-lingually 0.7 mm thick and subjected to a dye leakage test for four hours using 2% methylene blue dye. The tested specimens were then trimmed into dumbbell shapes at the gingival margin and subjected to microtensile testing. The remaining two specimens were cut, embedded and observed for resin/dentin interfaces under a scanning electron microscope.
For the microleakage test, there were no significant differences in microleakage among the groups on both the enamel and dentin margin. No statistically significant differences were found between microleakage of the loaded and unloaded groups on enamel margins for all materials. There were statistically significant differences between microleakage of the loaded and unloaded groups on the dentin margin for Groups 3 and 4. For the microtensile test, the significant difference was found between Groups 1 and 4 for the unloaded groups. For the loaded groups, there were no significant differences between Groups 1 and 2 and Groups 3 and 4. There were no statistically significant differences in microtensile bond strength between the loaded and unloaded groups except for Group 2.
The application of filled adhesive or low viscosity resin had no influence on marginal leakage at both the enamel and dentin margin but it had an influence on the microtensile bond strength to dentin of Class V restorations. Occlusal loading significantly increased the degree of marginal leakage at the dentin margin when low viscosity was applied in combination with either unfilled or filled-adhesives, but it decreased dentin bond strength in the group treated with only filled adhesive.
本研究评估了一种未填充粘结树脂(Adper Single Bond)和一种填充粘结树脂(Adper Single Bond 2),在有无低粘度树脂(Filtek Flow)作为弹性洞壁的情况下,对Ⅴ类复合树脂修复体在未加载和加载条件下边缘微渗漏及牙本质微拉伸粘结强度的影响。
在56颗前磨牙的颊面制备V形洞,分别用未填充粘结剂(第1组和第3组)或填充粘结剂(第2组和第4组),其中第3组和第4组有低粘度树脂,第1组和第2组无低粘度树脂,然后用树脂复合材料修复。每组修复后的牙齿分为未加载和加载两个亚组,加载条件为以50N的加载力沿牙齿长轴平行方向循环加载250,000次。每组取5个样本,沿颊舌方向切成0.7mm厚,用2%亚甲蓝染料进行4小时的染料渗漏试验。然后将测试样本在牙龈边缘修剪成哑铃状,进行微拉伸测试。其余两个样本进行切割、包埋,在扫描电子显微镜下观察树脂/牙本质界面。
对于微渗漏测试,在釉质和牙本质边缘,各组之间的微渗漏无显著差异。对于所有材料,加载组和未加载组在釉质边缘的微渗漏之间未发现统计学上的显著差异。在第3组和第4组的牙本质边缘,加载组和未加载组的微渗漏之间存在统计学上的显著差异。对于微拉伸测试,未加载组中第1组和第4组之间存在显著差异。对于加载组,第1组和第2组以及第3组和第4组之间无显著差异。除第2组外,加载组和未加载组在微拉伸粘结强度上无统计学上的显著差异。
填充粘结剂或低粘度树脂的应用对釉质和牙本质边缘的边缘微渗漏无影响,但对Ⅴ类修复体与牙本质的微拉伸粘结强度有影响。当低粘度树脂与未填充或填充粘结剂联合应用时,咬合加载显著增加了牙本质边缘的边缘微渗漏程度,但在仅用填充粘结剂处理的组中,咬合加载降低了牙本质粘结强度。