Research & Development, Lvoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein.
J Adhes Dent. 2010 Dec;12(6):443-9. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a18240.
to evaluate whether retention loss of Class V restorations can be simulated in the laboratory and to compare these results with those from clinical trials.
nonretentive v-shaped Class V cavities were prepared on the lingual and buccal side of extracted premolars, half in dentin and half in enamel. Different adhesive systems (AS) were used with the same composite resin (Tetric EvoCeram) and 12 restorations per group: 1-step self-etching AS (AdheSE One, Adper Prompt L-Pop, Futurabond N, Hybrid Bond, iBond, Xeno III, Xeno IV), 2-step self-etching AS (AdheSE), 2-step etch-and-rinse AS (Excite, Prime & Bond NT), 3-step etch-and-rinse AS (Syntac) as well as a conventional glass ionomer (Ketac Fil) with and without conditioner. The comparison groups were the composite without adhesive and a 2-step etch-and-rinse AS (Prime & Bond NT) without etching of enamel and dentin. The restored teeth were submitted to an aging process involving 18 months of water storage, three intermittent phases of thermocycling (TC 10,000 times), and two phases of thermomechanical loading (1 x 640,000 chewing cycles after 12 months, 1 x 1,200,000 chewing cycles after 18 months; 100 N sine-wave force profile, pressing with steel ball without lifting). Retention loss of the restorations was evaluated after every 1000 thermocycles and every 120,000 cycles of thermomechanical loading. The databases MEDLINE and IADR abstracts were used to search for clinical studies on retention loss involving the adhesive systems that were included in the present study.
retention loss was only observed in the following groups: composite without adhesive (100% after first 1000 TC), glass ionomer without conditioner (8% after 6 months; 33% after 12 months, 100% after 18 months), adhesive without etching (17% after 6 months, 42% after 12 months). The laboratory results, however, matched with the clinical results only for three adhesive systems (Futurabond NR, Hybrid Bond, Xeno IV, 0% retention loss, 5 studies, observation period between 1.5 and 2 years).
if the materials were applied according to the manufacturer's instructions, no retention loss was observed in the laboratory model. The laboratory model did not reflect the clinical findings.
评估是否可以在实验室模拟 V 类缺损修复体的固位丧失，并将这些结果与临床试验进行比较。
在离体前磨牙的颊舌面制备非保留性 V 形 V 类洞，一半位于牙本质，一半位于釉质。使用不同的粘接系统（AS）和相同的复合树脂（Tetric EvoCeram），每组 12 个修复体：一步自酸蚀 AS（AdheSE One、Adper Prompt L-Pop、Futurabond N、Hybrid Bond、iBond、Xeno III、Xeno IV）、两步自酸蚀 AS（AdheSE）、两步酸蚀-冲洗 AS（Excite、Prime & Bond NT）、三步酸蚀-冲洗 AS（Syntac）以及一种常规玻璃离子水门汀（Ketac Fil），有或没有偶联剂。对照组为不含粘接剂的复合树脂和不含牙本质和釉质酸蚀的两步酸蚀-冲洗 AS（Prime & Bond NT）。修复后的牙齿经过 18 个月的水储存、10000 次热循环（TC）三个间歇性阶段和 12 个月后 1x640000 次咀嚼循环、18 个月后 1x1200000 次咀嚼循环（100N 正弦波力曲线，用钢球按压，不提起）的热机械加载两个阶段的老化处理。每隔 1000 次热循环和 120000 次热机械加载后评估修复体的固位丧失。使用 MEDLINE 和 IADR 摘要数据库搜索包含在本研究中的粘接系统的涉及固位丧失的临床研究。
仅在以下组中观察到固位丧失：不含粘接剂的复合树脂（首次 1000 次 TC 后 100%）、无偶联剂的玻璃离子水门汀（6 个月后 8%；12 个月后 33%；18 个月后 100%）、无酸蚀粘接剂（6 个月后 17%；12 个月后 42%）。然而，实验室结果仅与三种粘接系统（Futurabond NR、Hybrid Bond、Xeno IV，无保留率，5 项研究，观察期 1.5 至 2 年）的临床结果相符。
如果按照制造商的说明应用材料，则在实验室模型中未观察到固位丧失。实验室模型未能反映临床发现。
