Clinical Dental Materials, Department of Dentistry and Dental Hygiene, University Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, Groningen, The Netherlands.
J Adhes Dent. 2009 Oct;11(5):391-7.
This study evaluated the fracture strength and failure types of indirect resin-based composite laminates bonded to teeth with aged Class III composite restorations that were conditioned according to various protocols.
Maxillary central incisors (N = 60) with window-type preparations received laminates made of a highly-filled resin composite material (Estenia) (10 per group).On the mesial and distal side, Class III cavities (3 x 3 mm) were prepared using ultrasonic burs and filled with resin composite (Quadrant Anterior Shine). The unrestored teeth served as a control group (group 6). All restored teeth (n=50) were thermocycled (5 degrees C to 55 degrees C, 6000X) and subjected to one of the conditioning protocols: (1) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles coated with silica (30-microm SiO2, CoJet)+silanization, (2) air-particle abrasion with alumina particles (50 microm, Al2O3)+silanization, (3) 9.5% hydrofluoric acid (HF) for 90 s (Ultradent)+silanization and (4) protocol of Clearfil Repair Kit, (5) adhesive resin (Quadrant Unibond Sealer). A three-step bonding procedure and dual-polymerizing resin cement (Panavia F 2.0) were employed. The inner surfaces of the laminates were conditioned (CoJet-Sand, 30 mum SiO2) and silanized (ESPE-Sil). All specimens were stored in water at 37 degrees C for one month prior to the fracture test.
A significant difference was observed in fracture strength values between the groups (ANOVA, p = 0.0261). The only significant difference was between group 2 (299 +/- 103 N) and group 3 (471 +/- 126 N) (p = 0.0239) (Tukey's test, alpha = 0.05). The majority of failures were type C (35/60) (chipping of the laminate with enamel exposure), followed by type B (21/60) (cohesive failure within the composite laminate).
The fracture strengths of the laminates tested did not show significant differences, whether they were bonded to existing, aged Class III composite restorations or to intact teeth. The failure types, however, varied between the groups. The lowest strengths were obtained from the air-particle abraded (50 microm, Al2O3) and silanized group.
本研究评估了经不同方案处理的老化 III 类复合修复体的间接树脂基复合材料层压板与牙齿的结合强度和失效类型。
上颌中切牙(N=60)采用窗型预备,接受高度填充树脂复合材料(Estenia)制成的层压板(每组 10 个)。在近中和远中侧,使用超声车针制备 III 类洞(3 x 3mm)并用树脂复合树脂(Quadrant Anterior Shine)填充。未修复的牙齿作为对照组(第 6 组)。所有修复后的牙齿(n=50)均经过热循环(5°C 至 55°C,6000X)并进行以下一种处理方案:(1)用涂有二氧化硅的氧化铝颗粒(30 微米 SiO2,CoJet)+硅烷化进行空气颗粒喷砂处理,(2)用氧化铝颗粒(50 微米,Al2O3)+硅烷化进行空气颗粒喷砂处理,(3)用 9.5%氢氟酸(HF)处理 90 秒(Ultradent)+硅烷化和(4)Clearfil 修复套件的方案,(5)用粘合树脂(Quadrant Unibond Sealer)处理。采用三步粘结程序和双固化树脂水泥(Panavia F 2.0)。对层压板的内表面进行处理(CoJet-Sand,30 微米 SiO2)和硅烷化(ESPE-Sil)。所有标本均在 37°C 的水中储存一个月,然后进行断裂试验。
组间的断裂强度值存在显著差异(ANOVA,p=0.0261)。唯一显著差异是组 2(299 +/- 103 N)和组 3(471 +/- 126 N)之间(p=0.0239)(Tukey 检验,alpha=0.05)。大多数失效类型为 C 型(35/60)(层压板崩瓷伴釉质暴露),其次是 B 型(21/60)(复合层内的内聚性失效)。
无论与现有的、老化的 III 类复合修复体还是与完整的牙齿结合,测试的层压板的断裂强度均无显著差异。然而,各组之间的失效类型不同。用空气颗粒喷砂处理(50 微米,Al2O3)和硅烷化处理的组获得的强度最低。