Suppr超能文献

不同测试方法的粘结强度结果的直接比较:文献综述评价

Direct comparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: a critical literature review.

机构信息

University of Geneva, School of Dental Medicine, Dept. of Prosthodontics-Biomaterials, Geneva, Switzerland.

出版信息

Dent Mater. 2010 Feb;26(2):e78-93. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.12.002. Epub 2010 Jan 8.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The goal of this paper is to undertake a literature search collecting all dentin bond strength data obtained for six adhesives with four tests (shear, microshear, tensile and microtensile) and to critically analyze the results with respect to average bond strength, coefficient of variation, mode of failure and product ranking.

METHOD

A PubMed search was carried out for the years between 1998 and 2009 identifying publications on bond strength measurements of resin composite to dentin using four tests: shear, tensile, microshear and microtensile. The six adhesive resins were selected covering three step systems (OptiBond FL, Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose Plus), two-step (Prime & Bond NT, Single Bond, Clearfil SE Bond) and one step (Adper Prompt L Pop).

RESULTS

Pooling results from 147 references showed an ongoing high scatter in the bond strength data regardless which adhesive and which bond test was used. Coefficients of variation remained high (20-50%) even with the microbond test. The reported modes of failure for all tests still included high number of cohesive failures. The ranking seemed to be dependant on the test used.

SIGNIFICANCE

The scatter in dentin bond strength data remains regardless which test is used confirming Finite Element Analysis predicting non-uniform stress distributions due to a number of geometrical, loading, material properties and specimens preparation variables. This reopens the question whether, an interfacial fracture mechanics approach to analyze the dentin-adhesive bond is not more appropriate for obtaining better agreement among dentin bond related papers.

摘要

目的

本文旨在进行文献检索,收集六种胶粘剂在四种测试(剪切、微剪切、拉伸和微拉伸)中获得的所有牙本质粘结强度数据,并对结果进行批判性分析,包括平均粘结强度、变异系数、失效模式和产品排名。

方法

在 1998 年至 2009 年期间,通过 PubMed 搜索,确定了使用四种测试(剪切、拉伸、微剪切和微拉伸)测量树脂复合材料与牙本质粘结强度的文献。选择了六种胶粘剂,涵盖了三步系统(OptiBond FL、Scotch Bond Multi-Purpose Plus)、两步系统(Prime & Bond NT、Single Bond、Clearfil SE Bond)和一步系统(Adper Prompt L Pop)。

结果

从 147 篇参考文献中汇总结果表明,无论使用哪种胶粘剂和粘结测试,粘结强度数据仍存在较大的离散性。即使使用微粘结测试,变异系数仍很高(20-50%)。所有测试的报告失效模式仍包括大量的内聚性失效。排名似乎取决于所使用的测试。

意义

无论使用哪种测试,牙本质粘结强度数据的离散性仍然存在,这证实了有限元分析预测由于几何形状、加载、材料性能和试件制备变量等因素导致的非均匀应力分布。这再次引发了一个问题,即界面断裂力学方法是否更适合分析牙本质-胶粘剂粘结,以获得更好的牙本质粘结相关文献的一致性。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验