Leuven BIOMAT Research Cluster, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Oral Pathology and Maxillo-Facial Surgery, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.
Dent Mater. 2010 Nov;26(11):1068-76. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.07.007. Epub 2010 Aug 10.
A static bond-strength test is often regarded as clinically less relevant, since such abrupt loading of the adhesive-tooth bond clinically never occurs. Therefore, dynamic fatigue testing is often claimed to better predict the clinical effectiveness of adhesives.
To measure the micro-tensile fatigue resistance (μTFR) of adhesives bonded to dentin, and to compare their μTFR to their micro-tensile bond strength (μTBS).
The bonding effectiveness (including fracture analysis) of three adhesives (OptiBond FL, Kerr: 3-step etch-and-rinse adhesive or 3-E&Ra; Clearfil SE, Kuraray: 2-step self-etch adhesive or 2-SEa; G-Bond, GC: 1-step self-etch adhesive or 1-SEa) was measured by means of both a dynamic μTFR and a static μTBS approach. Preparation and test set-up of the micro-specimens were identical for both tests. In fatigue, specimens were tested with a wide range of selected loads at 2Hz and at 10Hz until failure, or until 10(4) cycles were reached. At 2Hz, the μTFR was also measured after 3-month water storage. The μTFR was determined using a logistic regression model. Two-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD multiple comparisons test were used to determine statistical differences in μTBS.
The 1-SEa recorded significantly lower values in μTFR at 10Hz and in μTBS than the 2-SEa and 3-E&Ra. The 1-SEa and the 2-SEa performed significantly lower in μTFR than the 3-E&Ra, when tested at 2Hz after 3-month water storage. Fatigue testing at 2Hz after 1-week water storage did not reveal any differences in μTFR between the three adhesives.
The 3-E&Ra performed best in terms of bonding effectiveness, irrespective of the experimental condition or test used. The μTBS test proved once more to be a reliable laboratory test in ranking contemporary adhesives on their bonding effectiveness.
静态粘结强度测试通常被认为与临床相关性较小，因为这种对粘结-牙粘结的突然加载在临床上从未发生过。因此，动态疲劳测试通常被认为能更好地预测粘结剂的临床效果。
测量粘结于牙本质的粘结剂的微拉伸疲劳强度（μTFR），并比较其 μTFR 与其微拉伸粘结强度（μTBS）。
通过动态 μTFR 和静态 μTBS 两种方法测量三种粘结剂（OptiBond FL， Kerr：三步酸蚀-冲洗粘结剂或 3-E&Ra；Clearfil SE，Kuraray：两步自酸蚀粘结剂或 2-SEa；G-Bond，GC：一步自酸蚀粘结剂或 1-SEa）的粘结效果（包括断裂分析）。两种测试的微样本制备和测试设置均相同。在疲劳测试中，以 2Hz 和 10Hz 的宽负载范围对样本进行测试，直至失效或达到 104 个循环。在 2Hz 下，在 3 个月水储存后还测量了 μTFR。使用逻辑回归模型确定 μTFR。使用双向方差分析和 Tukey HSD 多重比较检验确定 μTBS 的统计学差异。
在 10Hz 和 μTBS 下，1-SEa 的值显著低于 2-SEa 和 3-E&Ra；在 3 个月水储存后以 2Hz 测试时，1-SEa 和 2-SEa 的 μTFR 值显著低于 3-E&Ra。在 1 周水储存后的 2Hz 疲劳测试中，三种粘结剂的 μTFR 之间没有差异。
3-E&Ra 在粘结效果方面表现最好，无论实验条件或使用的测试如何。μTBS 测试再次证明是一种可靠的实验室测试，可用于对当代粘结剂的粘结效果进行排序。
