Gomes-Silva Jaciara Miranda, Torres Carolina Paes, Contente Marta Maria Martins Giamatei, Oliveira Maria Angélica Hueb de Menezes, Palma-Dibb Regina Guenka, Borsatto Maria Cristina
Department of Pediatric Clinic, Preventive and Community Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2008;19(4):341-7. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402008000400010.
This study evaluated in vitro the shear bond strength (SBS) of a resin-based pit-and-fissure sealant [Fluroshield (F), Dentsply/Caulk] associated with either an etch-and-rinse [Adper Single Bond 2 (SB), 3M/ESPE] or a self-etching adhesive system [Clearfil S3 Bond (S3), Kuraray Co., Ltd.] to saliva-contaminated enamel, comparing two curing protocols: individual light curing of the adhesive system and the sealant or simultaneous curing of both materials. Mesial and distal enamel surfaces from 45 sound third molars were randomly assigned to 6 groups (n=15), according to the bonding technique: I - F was applied to 37% phosphoric acid etched enamel. The other groups were contaminated with fresh human saliva (0.01 mL; 10 s) after acid etching: II - SB and F were light cured separately; III - SB and F were light cured together; IV - S3 and F were light cured separately; V - S3 and F were light cured simultaneously; VI - F was applied to saliva-contaminated, acid-etched enamel without an intermediate bonding agent layer. SBS was tested to failure in a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/min. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Fisher's test (alpha=0.05).The debonded specimens were examined with a stereomicroscope to assess the failure modes. Three representative specimens from each group were observed under scanning electron microscopy for a qualitative analysis. Mean SBS in MPa were: I-12.28 (+/-4.29); II-8.57 (+/-3.19); III-7.97 (+/-2.16); IV-12.56 (+/-3.11); V-11.45 (+/-3.77); and VI-7.47 (+/-1.99). In conclusion, individual or simultaneous curing of the intermediate bonding agent layer and the resin sealant did not seem to affect bond strength to saliva-contaminated enamel. S3/F presented significantly higher SBS than the that of the groups treated with SB etch-and-rinse adhesive system and similar SBS to that of the control group, in which the sealant was applied under ideal dry, noncontaminated conditions.
本研究在体外评估了一种树脂基窝沟封闭剂[氟保护漆(F),登士柏/卡沃]与酸蚀冲洗粘结系统[单组分自酸蚀粘结剂(SB),3M/ESPE]或自酸蚀粘结系统[Clearfil S3 Bond(S3),可乐丽株式会社]联合使用时对受唾液污染釉质的剪切粘结强度(SBS),比较了两种固化方案:粘结系统和封闭剂单独光固化或两种材料同时固化。根据粘结技术,将45颗完好的第三磨牙的近中及远中釉质表面随机分为6组(n = 15):I组——F应用于经37%磷酸酸蚀的釉质。其他组在酸蚀后用新鲜人唾液(0.01 mL;持续10秒)污染:II组——SB和F分别光固化;III组——SB和F一起光固化;IV组——S3和F分别光固化;V组——S3和F同时光固化;VI组——F应用于受唾液污染、酸蚀的釉质,无中间粘结剂层。在万能试验机上以0.5 mm/min的速度测试SBS直至破坏。数据采用单因素方差分析和Fisher检验(α = 0.05)进行分析。对脱粘的标本用体视显微镜检查以评估破坏模式。从每组中选取三个代表性标本在扫描电子显微镜下观察进行定性分析。以MPa为单位的平均SBS为:I组-12.28(±4.29);II组-8.57(±3.19);III组-7.97(±2.16);IV组-12.56(±3.11);V组-11.45(±3.77);VI组-7.47(±1.99)。总之,中间粘结剂层和树脂封闭剂单独或同时固化似乎不影响对受唾液污染釉质的粘结强度。S3/F组的SBS显著高于用SB酸蚀冲洗粘结系统处理的组,且与对照组的SBS相似,对照组是在理想的干燥、无污染条件下应用封闭剂。