Department of Dental Materials, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
J Adhes Dent. 2011 Aug;13(4):341-8. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a19474.
To evaluate in vitro the microshear bond strength of adhesive systems applied to dentin according to manufacturers' instructions, associated or not with a hydrophobic layer of unfilled resin.
Six self-etching adhesives (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray Medical; AdheSE, Ivoclar Vivadent; Xeno III, Dentsply; I Bond, Heraeus-Kulzer; Bond Force, Tokuyama; Futurabond DC, Voco) were tested. The labial dentin of sixty bovine incisors was exposed, and the teeth were divided into two groups according to the application or not of an extra hydrophobic resin layer (Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus, bottle 3). Six composite cylinders (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) were built up on each treated surface. Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 h and then subjected to the microshear bond strength test in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Microshear bond strength values were analyzed by 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. Failure mode was determined using a stereomicroscope under 20X magnification.
The application of the hydrophobic resin layer did not affect bond strength, except for AdheSE. However, the bond strengths with the hydrophobic layer were similar among the six tested systems (Clearfil: 17.1 ± 7.9; AdheSE: 14.5 ± 7.1; Xeno lll: 12.8 ± 7.7; I Bond: 9.5 ± 5.8; Bond Force: 17.5 ± 4.1; Futurabond: 7.7 ± 2.3). When used as recommended by the manufacturers, Bond Force presented statistically higher bond strength than AdheSE and I Bond (p < 0.05) (Clearfil 10.4 ± 4.9; AdheSE 1.6 ± 1.6; Xeno lll: 9.0 ± 3.8; I Bond: 3.0 ± 1.5; Bond Force: 14 ± 3.9; Futurabond: 8.8 ± 3.8). Failure mode was predominantly adhesive.
The bond strength of the self-etching systems tested was not significantly affected by the application of a hydrophobic layer, but a significant improvement was observed in AdheSE.
根据制造商的说明，评估应用于牙本质的自酸蚀粘接系统的微剪切粘接强度，是否与未填充树脂的疏油层相关联。
共测试了 6 种自酸蚀粘接剂（Clearfil SE Bond，Kuraray Medical；AdheSE，Ivoclar Vivadent；Xeno III，Dentsply；I Bond，Heraeus-Kulzer；Bond Force，Tokuyama；Futurabond DC，Voco）。暴露 60 颗牛切牙的唇面牙本质，根据是否应用额外的疏油树脂层（Scotchbond Multi Purpose Plus，瓶 3）将牙齿分为两组。在每个处理表面上构建 6 个复合圆柱体（Filtek Z250，3M ESPE）。将样本在 37°C 的蒸馏水中储存 24 小时，然后在万能试验机中以 0.5mm/min 的十字头速度进行微剪切粘接强度测试。使用 2 因素方差分析和 Tukey 事后检验分析微剪切粘接强度值。使用立体显微镜在 20X 放大倍率下确定失效模式。
疏油层的应用除了 AdheSE 之外，不会影响粘接强度。然而，在 6 种测试系统中，具有疏油层的粘接强度相似（Clearfil：17.1 ± 7.9；AdheSE：14.5 ± 7.1；Xeno lll：12.8 ± 7.7；I Bond：9.5 ± 5.8；Bond Force：17.5 ± 4.1；Futurabond：7.7 ± 2.3）。当按照制造商的建议使用时，Bond Force 的粘接强度显著高于 AdheSE 和 I Bond（p<0.05）（Clearfil 10.4 ± 4.9；AdheSE 1.6 ± 1.6；Xeno lll：9.0 ± 3.8；I Bond：3.0 ± 1.5；Bond Force：14 ± 3.9；Futurabond：8.8 ± 3.8）。失效模式主要为粘接力破坏。
测试的自酸蚀粘接系统的粘接强度不受疏油层应用的显著影响，但 AdheSE 的粘接强度显著提高。
