Purk John H, Dusevich Vladimir, Atwood Jared, Spencer Becca Dawson, Kruse Dustin, Webb Tyler, Williams Angela, Tira Daniel
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Missouri-Kansas City, 650 East 25th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64108, USA.
Am J Dent. 2009 Dec;22(6):357-60.
To measure the in vitro dentin microtensile bond strength of established adhesives under different hydrostatic pulpal pressures.
After IRB approval, 24 human extracted third molars were randomly distributed into four adhesive treatment groups: Clearfil-SE (self-etch, water-based), One-Step Plus (total-etch, acetone-based), Peak-SE (self-etch, ethanol-based) and PQ1 (total-etch, ethanol-based, Ultradent). Additionally each group was assigned to be restored under 0.0, 5.0 or 15.0 cm of water pressure. Coronal enamel was removed using 60, 240 & 320-grit wet sandpaper until only dentin was visible. After adhesive placement Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative was applied in five 1.0 mm increments. All teeth were tested at 24 hours for microtensile bond strength and examined for mode of failure under light microscopy (x40).
A two-factor ANOVA found a statistically significant effect for adhesives, water pressures and their interaction (P < or = 0.001). Post hoc pairwise comparisons of simple effects using the Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch Range procedure showed Clearfil-SE stronger than the other adhesives at 5.0 and at 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07). One-Step Plus was weaker than PQ1 and Peak-SE at 5.0 and at 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07). PQ1 and Peak-SE at 0.0, 5.0 and 15.0 cm were not significantly different from each other (P > 0.07). For water pressure comparisons, Clearfil-SE was stronger at 0.0 vs. 5.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07), while there was no difference for Clearfil-SE between 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure (P > 0.07). One-Step Plus was significantly stronger at 0.0 cm water pressure than at 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure (P < 0.07), and at 5.0 cm water pressure it was stronger than at 15.0 cm pressure (P < 0.07). Both Peak-SE and PQ1 at 0.0 water pressure were significantly stronger than at 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure. There was no difference in strength between 5.0 and 15.0 cm water pressure for either of the two adhesives (P > 0.07).
测量在不同静水牙髓压力下已确立的粘结剂的体外牙本质微拉伸粘结强度。
经机构审查委员会批准后，将24颗拔除的人类第三磨牙随机分为四个粘结剂治疗组：Clearfil-SE（自酸蚀，水性）、One-Step Plus（全酸蚀，丙酮基）、Peak-SE（自酸蚀，乙醇基）和PQ1（全酸蚀，乙醇基，Ultradent）。此外，每组被指定在0.0、5.0或15.0厘米水柱压力下进行修复。使用60、240和320目湿砂纸去除冠部釉质，直到仅可见牙本质。放置粘结剂后，以五个1.0毫米增量施加Filtek Z250通用修复材料。所有牙齿在24小时时测试微拉伸粘结强度，并在光学显微镜（×40）下检查失败模式。
双因素方差分析发现粘结剂、水压及其相互作用具有统计学显著影响（P≤0.001）。使用Ryan-Einot-Gabriel-Welsch范围程序对简单效应进行事后两两比较显示，在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力下，Clearfil-SE比其他粘结剂更强（P<0.07）。在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力下，One-Step Plus比PQ1和Peak-SE弱（P<0.07）。PQ1和Peak-SE在0.0、5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力下彼此之间无显著差异（P>0.07）。对于水压比较，Clearfil-SE在0.0厘米水柱压力下比在5.0厘米水柱压力下更强（P<0.07），而Clearfil-SE在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力之间无差异（P>0.07）。One-Step Plus在0.0厘米水柱压力下比在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力下显著更强（P<0.07），并且在5.0厘米水柱压力下比在15.0厘米水柱压力下更强（P<0.07）。Peak-SE和PQ1在0.0厘米水柱压力下均比在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力下显著更强。两种粘结剂在5.0和15.0厘米水柱压力之间的强度无差异（P>0.07）。
