不同黏结剂对正常牙本质和龋损牙本质黏结强度的研究。

Department of Stomatology, Beijing Anzhen Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100029, China.

Chin Med J (Engl). 2010 Feb 5;123(3):332-6.

BACKGROUND

Currently, several systems of dentin substrate-reacting adhesives are available for use in the restorative treatment against caries. However, the bond effectiveness and property of different adhesive systems to caries-affected dentin are not fully understood. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of different adhesives to both normal dentin (ND) and caries-affected dentin (CAD) and to analyze the dentin/adhesive interfacial characteristics.

METHODS

Twenty eight extracted human molars with coronal medium carious lesions were randomly assigned to four groups according to adhesives used. ND and CAD were bonded with etch-and-rinse adhesive Adper Single Bond 2 (SB2) or self-etching adhesives Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Clearfil S(3) Bond (CS3), iBond GI (IB). Rectangular sticks of resin-dentin bonded interfaces 0.9 mm(2) were obtained. The specimens were subjected to microtensile bond strength (microTBS) testing at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Mean microTBS was statistically analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Student-Newman-Keuls tests. Interfacial morphologies were analyzed by Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).

RESULTS

Etch-and-rinse adhesive Adper(TM) Single Bond 2 yielded high bond strength when applied to both normal and caries-affected dentin. The two-step self-etching adhesive Clearfil SE Bond generated the highest bond strength to ND among all adhesives tested but a significantly reduced strength when applied to CAD. For the one-step self-etching adhesives, Clearfil S(3) Bond and iBond GI, the bond strength was relatively low regardless of the dentin type. SEM interfacial analysis revealed that hybrid layers were thicker with poorer resin tag formation and less resin-filled lateral branches in the CAD than in the ND for all the adhesives tested.

CONCLUSION

The etch-and-rinse adhesive performed more effectively to caries-affected dentin than the self-etching adhesives.

背景

目前，有几种牙本质基质反应性粘结剂系统可用于龋病的修复治疗。然而，不同粘结系统对龋损牙本质的粘结效果和性能尚不完全清楚。本研究的目的是评估不同粘结剂对正常牙本质（ND）和龋损牙本质（CAD）的粘结强度，并分析牙本质/粘结剂界面特性。

方法

28 颗人磨牙随机分为 4 组，根据使用的粘结剂进行分组。用蚀刻-冲洗粘结剂 Adper Single Bond 2（SB2）或自酸蚀粘结剂 Clearfil SE Bond（CSE）、Clearfil S（3）Bond（CS3）、iBond GI（IB）粘结正常牙本质和龋损牙本质。获得 0.9mm（2）的树脂-牙本质粘结界面的矩形棒。以 1mm/min 的十字头速度对试件进行微拉伸粘结强度（microTBS）测试。采用方差分析（ANOVA）和 Student-Newman-Keuls 检验对平均 microTBS 进行统计学分析。用扫描电子显微镜（SEM）分析界面形态。

结果

蚀刻-冲洗粘结剂 Adper（TM）Single Bond 2 对正常和龋损牙本质均具有较高的粘结强度。两步自酸蚀粘结剂 Clearfil SE Bond 在所有测试的粘结剂中对 ND 产生的粘结强度最高，但在 CAD 中粘结强度显著降低。对于一步自酸蚀粘结剂 Clearfil S（3）Bond 和 iBond GI，无论牙本质类型如何，粘结强度均较低。SEM 界面分析表明，与 ND 相比，所有测试的粘结剂在 CAD 中形成的混合层较厚，树脂标签形成较差，树脂填充的侧支较少。