Clinic for Pediatrics and Prevention Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Belgrade, Serbis.
J Adhes Dent. 2010 Dec;12(6):427-33. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a18237.
to determine the bond strength to unground enamel of all-in-one adhesives in comparison with an etch-andrinse system and to compare the reliability of microtensile and microshear methods in providing such measurements.
the bonding procedure was performed on enamel of 64 extracted molars. The tested all-inone adhesives were: Bond Force (Tokuyama), AdheSE One (Ivoclar-Vivadent), and Xeno V (Dentsply). Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply) served as control. Microtensile specimens were obtained from 4 teeth per group. Twelve teeth per group were used for microshear testing. Microtensile specimens that failed prior to testing were included in statistical calculations; they were assigned the lowest value measured in the respective group. Failure modes were observed under light microscope and classified (cohesive within substrates, adhesive, mixed). Statistically significant differences in bond strength were assessed among the adhesives within each testing method and between microshear and microtensile data for each adhesive. Failure mode distributions were compared using the chi-square test.
all-in-one adhesives had similar microshear and microtensile bond strengths. In both testing methods, the etch-and-rinse system achieved the strongest bond. For all adhesives, significantly higher bond strengths were measured with the microshear test. In microtensile testing, specimens bonded with the etch-and-rinse adhesive exhibited a significantly different distribution of failure modes. The coefficients of variation were extremely high for microtensile bond strength data, particularly of all-in-one adhesives.
the adhesive potential to intact enamel of recently introduced all-in-one adhesives was inferior to that of an etch-and-rinse system. When testing bond strength to enamel of all-in-one adhesives, microshear testing may be a more accurate method than microtensile.
比较全酸蚀和自酸蚀黏结系统对釉质的黏结强度，并比较微拉伸和微剪切测试方法在提供此类测量中的可靠性。
黏结程序在 64 颗离体磨牙的釉质上进行。测试的全酸蚀黏结剂有：Bond Force（可乐丽）、AdheSE One（义获嘉伟瓦登特）和 Xeno V（登士柏）。Prime&Bond NT（登士柏）为对照组。从每组的 4 颗牙中获得微拉伸试件。每组的 12 颗牙用于微剪切测试。在测试前失效的微拉伸试件包含在统计计算中；它们被分配到各自组中测量的最低值。在光镜下观察失效模式，并进行分类（基质内的内聚性、黏附性、混合性）。在每种测试方法中，对各组黏结剂的黏结强度进行了统计学显著差异评估，并对每种黏结剂的微剪切和微拉伸数据进行了比较。使用卡方检验比较失效模式分布。
全酸蚀黏结剂的微剪切和微拉伸黏结强度相似。在两种测试方法中，自酸蚀黏结系统均获得最强的黏结强度。对于所有黏结剂，微剪切测试的黏结强度明显更高。在微拉伸测试中，用自酸蚀黏结剂黏结的试件表现出明显不同的失效模式分布。微拉伸黏结强度数据的变异系数非常高，尤其是全酸蚀黏结剂。
最近推出的全酸蚀黏结剂对完整釉质的黏附潜力低于自酸蚀黏结系统。在测试全酸蚀黏结剂对釉质的黏结强度时，微剪切测试可能比微拉伸测试更准确。
