Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Kapucijnenvoer 7, B-3000 Leuven, Belgium.
Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e100-21. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.148. Epub 2009 Dec 16.
One often alleges that laboratory bond-strength testing cannot predict clinical effectiveness of adhesives. Major argument to sustain this claim is the wide variation in bond-strength values recorded for one specific adhesive among different research institutes worldwide. The main reason for these inconsistent bond-strength measurements is supposedly the current lack of a standard bond-strength testing protocol. This paper (and presentation) aimed to report on an extensive literature review with regard to the different laboratory bond-strength test methods and their data provided, along with a second extensive literature review on clinical effectiveness data of adhesives in terms of retention rates of adhesive Class-V restorations. Combining both systematic reviews, we have subsequently searched for a potential relationship between bond-strength data and clinical outcomes.
人们常声称，实验室粘结强度测试无法预测粘结剂的临床效果。支持这一说法的主要论据是，在全球不同的研究机构中，同一种特定粘结剂的粘结强度值差异很大。造成这些粘结强度测量结果不一致的主要原因，据称是目前缺乏标准的粘结强度测试方案。本文（和演讲）旨在报告一项广泛的文献综述，内容涉及不同的实验室粘结强度测试方法及其提供的数据，以及第二项关于粘结剂临床效果数据（即粘结剂 V 类修复体保留率）的广泛文献综述。通过对这两项系统综述进行综合分析，我们随后在粘结强度数据与临床结果之间寻找潜在的关系。
