Suppr超能文献

自酸蚀黏结剂对釉质表面黏结强度及其界面形态的影响。

Bond efficacy and interface morphology of self-etching adhesives to ground enamel.

机构信息

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Tanta, Tanta, Egypt.

出版信息

J Adhes Dent. 2010 Feb;12(1):19-25. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a17527.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study compared the microshear bond strengths to ground enamel of three one-step self-etching adhesive systems, a self-etching primer system and an etch-and-rinse adhesive system.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Three self-etching adhesives, Futurabond DC (Voco), Clearfil S Tri Bond (Kuraray) and Hybrid bond (Sun-Medical), a self-etching primer, Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), and an etch-and-rinse system, Admira Bond (Voco), were selected. Thirty human molars were used. The root of each tooth was removed and the crown was sectioned into halves. The convex enamel surfaces were reduced by polishing on silicone paper to prepare a flat surface. The bonding systems were applied on this surface. Prior to adhesive curing, a hollow cylinder (2.0 mm height/0.75 mm internal diameter) was placed on the treated surfaces. A resin composite was then inserted into the tube and cured. After water storage for 24 h, the tube was removed and shear bond strength was determined in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The results were analyzed with ANOVA and the Tukey.-Kramer test at a 59 degrees confidence level. The enamel of five additional teeth was ground, and the etching component of each adhesive was applied and removed with absolute ethanol instead of being light cured. These teeth and selected fractured surfaces were examined by SEM.

RESULTS

Adhesion to ground enamel of the Futurabond DC (25 +/- 3.5 MPa) and Clearfil SE Bond (23 +/- 2.9 MPa) self-etching systems was not significantly different from the etch-and-rinse system Admira Bond (27 +/- 2.3 MPa). The two self-etching adhesives Clearfil S Tri bond and Hybrid Bond demonstrated significantly lower bond strengths (14 +/- 1.4 MPa; 11 +/- 1.9 MPa) with no significant differences between them (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Bond strengths to ground enamel of self-etching adhesive systems are dependent on the type of adhesive system. Some of the new adhesive systems showed bond strength values comparable to that of etch-and-rinse systems. There was no correlation between bond strength and morphological changes in enamel.

摘要

目的

本研究比较了三种一步自酸蚀粘接系统、一种自酸蚀底涂剂系统和一种酸蚀-冲洗粘接系统对釉质的微拉伸粘接强度。

材料与方法

选用三种自酸蚀粘接剂(Futurabond DC[Voco]、Clearfil S Tri Bond[Kuraray]和 Hybrid bond[Sun-Medical])、一种自酸蚀底涂剂(Clearfil SE Bond[Kuraray])和一种酸蚀-冲洗系统(Admira Bond[Voco])。选取 30 个人类磨牙。去除每颗牙齿的根部,将牙冠切成两半。通过在硅酮纸上抛光使牙冠的凸面釉质减少,制备出一个平面。在这个表面上应用粘接系统。在粘接剂固化之前,将一个空心圆柱体(高 2.0 毫米/内径 0.75 毫米)放在处理过的表面上。然后将树脂复合材料插入管中并固化。水储存 24 小时后,取出管,在万能试验机上以 0.5 毫米/分钟的十字头速度测定剪切粘接强度。在 95%置信水平下采用方差分析和 Tukey-Kramer 检验对结果进行分析。另外五颗牙齿的釉质被研磨,每个粘接剂的酸蚀成分用无水乙醇代替光固化去除。这些牙齿和选择的断裂面用 SEM 检查。

结果

Futurabond DC(25±3.5 MPa)和 Clearfil SE Bond(23±2.9 MPa)自酸蚀系统对釉质的粘接强度与酸蚀-冲洗系统 Admira Bond(27±2.3 MPa)没有显著差异。两种自酸蚀粘接剂 Clearfil S Tri bond 和 Hybrid Bond 的粘接强度明显较低(14±1.4 MPa;11±1.9 MPa),但两者之间无显著差异(p<0.05)。

结论

自酸蚀粘接系统对釉质的粘接强度取决于粘接系统的类型。一些新型粘接系统显示出与酸蚀-冲洗系统相当的粘接强度值。粘接强度与釉质形态变化之间无相关性。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验