Sauro Salvatore, Mannocci Francesco, Toledano Manuel, Osorio Raquel, Thompson Ian, Watson Timothy F
Biomaterials, Biomimetics & Biophotonics, King's College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St. Thomas' Hospitals, Floor 17 Guy's Hospital, London, UK.
Dent Mater. 2009 Nov;25(11):1392-402. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.06.010. Epub 2009 Jul 25.
The aim of this study was to investigate the droplet formation using a real-time/confocal microscopy technique, when different self-etching and etch-and-rinse adhesives were applied in the presence or absence of pulpal pressure. Resin-dentin permeability (%P) was also evaluated.
Optibond FL, Silorane adhesive, Scotchbond 1XT, G-Bond and DC-Bond were bonded in the presence or in absence of simulated pulpal pressure. A fluid-transport model was used to measure the water permeability through resin-bonded dentin. Half of the specimens bonded in the presence of the hydrostatic pulpal pressure (20 cm H2O) were light cured, whereas the remnant half received no light curing. The same was done with the half of the specimens bonded under no pulpal pressure. The specimens were investigated under a confocal TSM.
Optibond FL and G-Bond had the lowest dentin permeability. Optibond FL adhesive showed few water droplets on the polymerized external surface and within the resin-dentin interface. G-Bond showed static interfacial globular-like droplet formation. DC-Bond and Scotchbond 1XT were the most water permeable adhesives both in the presence and in absence of pulpal pressure. A dynamic interfacial non-globular-like droplet formation was observed. Severe droplet formation was observed on the polymerized external surface.
The presence of the pulpal pressure may cause increasing in fluid filtration and droplet formation in simplified adhesives containing HEMA. The adhesives containing 4-META (G-Bond) may be affected by static phase separation but by very low osmotic droplets formation and water permeability. The three-step adhesives are less affected by these problems.
本研究旨在利用实时/共聚焦显微镜技术，研究在有或无牙髓压力的情况下应用不同的自酸蚀和酸蚀冲洗粘结剂时的液滴形成情况。同时评估树脂-牙本质渗透性（%P）。
在有或无模拟牙髓压力的情况下粘结Optibond FL、Silorane粘结剂、Scotchbond 1XT、G-Bond和DC-Bond。使用流体传输模型测量通过树脂粘结牙本质的水渗透性。在静水压牙髓压力（20 cm H2O）下粘结的标本中有一半进行光固化，而其余一半不进行光固化。在无牙髓压力下粘结的标本的另一半也进行同样处理。在共聚焦TSM下对标本进行研究。
Optibond FL和G-Bond的牙本质渗透性最低。Optibond FL粘结剂在聚合的外表面和树脂-牙本质界面内显示出少量水滴。G-Bond显示出静态界面球状液滴形成。DC-Bond和Scotchbond 1XT在有和无牙髓压力时都是渗透性最高的粘结剂。观察到动态界面非球状液滴形成。在聚合的外表面观察到严重的液滴形成。
牙髓压力的存在可能会导致含HEMA的简化粘结剂中液体过滤增加和液滴形成。含4-META（G-Bond）的粘结剂可能会受到静态相分离的影响，但渗透压液滴形成和水渗透性非常低。三步法粘结剂受这些问题的影响较小。
