Amarante de Araujo P, Asmussen E
University of São Paulo, Bauru, Brazil.
Acta Odontol Scand. 1990 Oct;48(5):333-6. doi: 10.3109/00016359009033625.
Enamel-surrounded cavities prepared in extracted human teeth were treated with an enamel-bonding agent, one of two commercial dentin adhesives (Scotchbond 2 and Tenure), or one of two recent modifications of the Gluma system. In all cases the enamel margins were subjected to some form of acid etching. The cavities were filled with one of two different light-cured posterior resins, and the wall-to-wall polymerization contraction was assessed in the enamel surface level and, after grinding, measured and presented as linear shrinkage in the dentin surface level. The linear shrinkage varied from 0.66% in the control group, in which only composite resin was applied, to 0.28% in a group in which the cavities were pretreated with dentin adhesive. No difference could be demonstrated between the dentin adhesives or between the dentin adhesives and the enamel-bonding agent.
在拔除的人牙上制备的釉质包围的窝洞，用一种釉质粘结剂、两种市售牙本质粘结剂（Scotchbond 2和Tenure）之一或Gluma系统的两种最新改良剂之一进行处理。在所有情况下，釉质边缘都进行了某种形式的酸蚀。窝洞用两种不同的光固化后牙树脂之一填充，并在釉质表面水平评估壁对壁聚合收缩，研磨后测量并表示为牙本质表面水平的线性收缩。线性收缩率从仅应用复合树脂的对照组的0.66%到用牙本质粘结剂预处理窝洞的组的0.28%不等。在牙本质粘结剂之间或牙本质粘结剂与釉质粘结剂之间未显示出差异。
