Department of Dental Materials and Prosthodontics, São José dos Campos Dental School, São Paulo State University (UNESP), São Paulo, Brazil.
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2010 Aug;22(4):262-8. doi: 10.1111/j.1708-8240.2010.00349.x.
This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength of two resin cements to dentin either with their corresponding self-etching adhesives or employing the three-step "etch-and-rinse" technique. The null hypothesis was that the "etch-and-rinse" adhesive system would generate higher bond strengths than the self-etching adhesives.
Thirty-two human molars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 32, n = 8/per group): G1) ED Primer self-etching adhesive + Panavia F; G2) All-Bond 2 "etch-and-rinse" adhesive + Panavia F; G3) Multilink primer A/B self-etching adhesive + Multilink resin cement; G4) All-Bond 2 + Multilink. After cementation of composite resin blocks (5 x 5 x 4 mm), the specimens were stored in water (37 degrees C, 24 hours), and sectioned to obtain beams (+/-1 mm(2) of adhesive area) to be submitted to microtensile test. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).
Although the cement type did not significantly affect the results (p = 0.35), a significant effect of the adhesive system (p = 0.0001) was found on the bond strength results. Interaction terms were not significant (p = 0.88751). The "etch-and-rinse" adhesive provided significantly higher bond strength values (MPa) with both resin cements (G2: 34.4 +/- 10.6; G4: 33.0 +/- 8.9) compared to the self-etching adhesive systems (G1: 19.8 +/- 6.6; G3: 17.8 +/- 7.2) (p < 0.0001). Pretest failures were more frequent in the groups where self-etching systems were used.
Although the cement type did not affect the results, there was a significant effect of changing the bonding strategy. The use of the three-step "etch-and-rinse" adhesive resulted in significantly higher bond strength for both resin cements on dentin.
Dual polymerized resin cements tested could deliver higher bond strength to dentin in combination with "etch-and-rinse" adhesive systems as opposed to their use in combination with self-etching adhesives.
本研究评估了两种树脂水门汀与相应的自酸蚀黏结剂或采用三步“酸蚀-冲洗”技术联合使用时对牙本质的微拉伸黏结强度。零假设为“酸蚀-冲洗”黏结系统产生的黏结强度高于自酸蚀黏结剂。
32 颗人磨牙随机分为四组（N = 32，n = 8/组）：G1）ED 底漆自酸蚀黏结剂+ Panavia F；G2）All-Bond 2“酸蚀-冲洗”黏结剂+ Panavia F；G3）Multilink 底漆 A/B 自酸蚀黏结剂+ Multilink 树脂水门汀；G4）All-Bond 2+Multilink。复合树脂块（5x5x4mm）黏结后，将样本储存在水中（37°C，24 小时），并切成小条（+/-1mm²的黏结面积）进行微拉伸测试。使用双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验（α=0.05）对数据进行分析。
尽管黏结剂类型对结果没有显著影响（p=0.35），但黏结系统（p=0.0001）对黏结强度结果有显著影响。交互项无显著差异（p=0.88751）。与自酸蚀黏结系统（G1：19.8±6.6；G3：17.8±7.2）相比，“酸蚀-冲洗”黏结系统联合两种树脂水门汀时（G2：34.4±10.6；G4：33.0±8.9）提供了更高的黏结强度值（MPa）（p<0.0001）。使用自酸蚀系统时，预测试失败更频繁。
尽管黏结剂类型对结果没有影响，但改变黏结策略有显著影响。与使用自酸蚀黏结剂联合使用相比，使用三步“酸蚀-冲洗”黏结系统联合两种树脂水门汀时，对牙本质的黏结强度更高。
与联合使用自酸蚀黏结剂相比，测试的双固化树脂水门汀与“酸蚀-冲洗”黏结系统联合使用时，可在牙本质上获得更高的黏结强度。
