University of Zürich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Dental Material Sciences, Zürich, Switzerland.
J Adhes Dent. 2010 Dec;12(6):451-9. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a17857.
this study evaluated the effect of different aging methods on the repair bond strength and failure types of a microhybrid and a nanohybrid composite.
disk-shaped microhybrid (Quadrant Anterior Shine-QA) and nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram-TE) resin composite specimens (N = 192, n = 12/per group) were photopolymerized and randomly assigned to one of the three aging conditions: (1) immersion in deionized water (37°C, 2 months), (2) thermocycling (5000 times, 5 to 55 °C), (3) immersion in citric acid (pH: 3.0; 1 week). The control group was stored dry for 24 h at 37°C. After aging procedures, the specimens were silica coated (30 microm SiO2) (CoJet-Sand) using an intraoral air abrasion device, silanized (ESPESil) and an intermediate adhesive resin was applied (Visio-Bond, 3M ESPE). Resin composites, once of the same kind as the substrate (QA-QA, TE-TE) and once other than the substrate material (QA-TE, TE-QA) were adhered onto the conditioned substrates. Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a universal testing machine (cross-head speed: 1 mm/min).
a significant influence of the aging method was observed (p < 0.05) but the composite type did not affect the repair bond strength (p = 0.755) (2-way ANOVA, Tukey's test). Interaction terms were significant (p < 0.05). Thermocycling showed lower results (10 ± 2.6 to 14.4 ± 4.4 MPa) than those of other aging methods (12.7 ± 5.2 to 28 ± 5.3 MPa). Using the substrate and the adherend interchangeably (QA-TE, TE-QA) did not show significant differences in the control group, but the results were significant after aging (p = 0.007) (2-way ANOVA, Tukey's test). Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.124). The incidence of score A (cohesive failures in the substrate) was not significant between the composite combinations in the control groups (exclusively 100%) and water-storage aged groups (92% to 100%) (p > 0.05) (chi-square). Citric acid aging yielded significantly less incidence of score A (8-75%) compared to the control group in all composite combinations (p < 0.05).
both microhybrid and nanohybrid composites could be used either as a substrate or as relayering composites in early repairs. Aging factors may diminish the repair quality.
本研究评估了不同老化方法对微混合体和纳米混合体复合材料修复粘结强度和失效类型的影响。
将圆盘状微混合体（Quadrant Anterior Shine-QA）和纳米混合体（Tetric EvoCeram-TE）树脂复合材料试件（N = 192，n = 12/组）进行光聚合，并随机分配到以下三种老化条件之一：（1）浸入去离子水中（37°C，2 个月），（2）热循环（5000 次，5 至 55°C），（3）浸入柠檬酸中（pH：3.0；1 周）。对照组在 37°C 下干燥储存 24 小时。老化程序后，使用口腔内空气喷砂装置对试件进行二氧化硅涂层（30 µm SiO2）（CoJet-Sand）处理，硅烷化（ESPESil）并应用中间粘结树脂（Visio-Bond，3M ESPE）。与基底同种材料的一种树脂复合材料（QA-QA，TE-TE）和与基底材料不同的一种树脂复合材料（QA-TE，TE-QA）被粘接到处理后的基底上。在万能试验机上以 1mm/min 的十字头速度向粘结界面施加剪切力。
老化方法有显著影响（p<0.05），但复合材料类型对修复粘结强度无影响（p=0.755）（2 因素方差分析，Tukey 检验）。交互项有显著差异（p<0.05）。热循环的结果（10±2.6 至 14.4±4.4 MPa）低于其他老化方法（12.7±5.2 至 28±5.3 MPa）。在对照组中，基底和附着体相互替换（QA-TE，TE-QA）没有显著差异，但在老化后有显著差异（p=0.007）（2 因素方差分析，Tukey 检验）。交互项无显著差异（p=0.124）。在对照组（均为 100%）和水储存老化组（92%至 100%）中，所有复合材料组合的 A 级（基底内的粘结性失效）发生率均无显著差异（p>0.05）（卡方）。柠檬酸老化与所有复合材料组合的对照组相比，A 级发生率显著降低（8%至 75%）（p<0.05）。
微混合体和纳米混合体复合材料均可作为早期修复的基底或再修复层复合材料使用。老化因素可能会降低修复质量。
