Department of Oral Rehabilitation, School of Dentistry, Medical College of Georgia, Augusta, GA, USA.
Oper Dent. 2010 May-Jun;35(3):273-8. doi: 10.2341/09-266-C.
This study was undertaken to evaluate the two-year clinical performance of a self-etching primer and a self-etching adhesive, both of which employ the same acidic monomer. Forty pairs of restorations of AP-X hybrid resin composite (Kuraray Co, Ltd, Osaka, Japan) were placed in caries-free cervical erosion/abfraction lesions. Based on insensitivity to air, the dentin in 62% of these lesions was considered to be sclerotic. The restorations were placed with no abrasion of tooth surfaces, except for cleaning with plain pumice and no use of phosphoric acid etching, which is counter to the manufacturer's instructions that call for etching of unprepared enamel. One restoration from each pair was placed using Clearfil SE Bond, an adhesive employing a self-etching primer, and the other was placed using Clearfil S3 Bond, a self-etching adhesive. To emulate the results likely to occur in a private practice, the restorations were placed by well-educated, experienced clinicians who had no particular expertise in adhesive dentistry research and who placed the restorations according only to their interpretation of the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were clinically evaluated at baseline and at 6, 12 and 24 months, using modified Ryge/USPHS criteria. For both products, retention of 81%-84% of the restorations was observed over two years, which is lower than has been previously observed with these products and is likely due to limitations in the manufacturer's instructions compounded by inexperience of the operators in adhesive dentistry research. One restoration placed with each adhesive demonstrated secondary caries, which was probably attributable to the study being conducted in a non-fluoridated area and which reduced the percentages of clinically successful restorations to 78%-81%. No statistically significant difference (p = 0.50) between the two adhesives was observed in overall performance.
本研究旨在评估一种自酸蚀底漆和一种自酸蚀黏合剂的两年临床性能，这两种产品均采用相同的酸性单体。将 40 对 AP-X 混合树脂复合材料（Kuraray Co., Ltd.，日本大阪）修复体放置于无龋性颈缘侵蚀/牙折裂病变中。根据对空气的不敏感性，这些病变中有 62%的牙本质被认为是硬化的。修复体的放置没有磨损牙面，除了用普通浮石清洁，没有使用磷酸酸蚀，这与制造商的说明相悖，制造商的说明要求对未经处理的牙釉质进行酸蚀。每对中的一个修复体使用 Clearfil SE Bond 黏合剂，这是一种采用自酸蚀底漆的黏合剂，另一个使用 Clearfil S3 Bond 自酸蚀黏合剂。为了模拟在私人诊所中可能出现的结果，由受过良好教育、经验丰富的临床医生进行修复体的放置，这些医生没有特定的黏结牙科研究专业知识，仅根据对制造商说明的理解来放置修复体。使用改良的 Ryge/USPHS 标准，在基线和 6、12 和 24 个月时对修复体进行临床评估。两种产品在两年内的保留率均为 81%-84%，低于之前观察到的结果，这可能是由于制造商说明的限制以及操作人员在黏结牙科研究方面缺乏经验所致。使用每种黏合剂放置的一个修复体显示继发龋，这可能归因于研究在非氟化物地区进行，这将临床成功的修复体百分比降低至 78%-81%。两种黏合剂的总体性能之间没有统计学上的显著差异（p = 0.50）。
