Charité-Universitatsmedizin Berlin, Dental School, Berlin, Germany.
J Adhes Dent. 2011 Feb;13(1):23-9. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a18445.
To evaluate marginal adaptation of Class I restorations in enamel using contemporary one-bottle all-in-one adhesives, stressed by thermocycling (TC) and mechanical loading (ML).
Ninety-six extracted human molars were prepared (standard Class I cavities: 3 mm deep, 6 mm wide mesio-distally, and 4 mm wide bucco-lingually). Twelve adhesive systems were used: OptiBond FL (OPT), Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) and Adper Prompt L-Pop (PLP) as controls, compared with nine one-bottle all-in-one adhesives - AdheSe One (AHO), Adper Easy Bond (EB), Bond Force (BF), G-Bond (GB), iBond Self Etch (IB), One Coat 7.0 (OC), OptiBond All-in-one (OPA), Clearfil Tri-S-Bond (TSB), Xeno V (XV). All teeth were restored using Filtek Z250 placed in three (one horizontal, two oblique) increments. Enamel margins were evaluated following 21 days of water storage, after thermocycling (2000 cycles: 5°C to 55°C), and after mechanical loading (150,000 cycles, 50 N). After each step, replicas were produced and quantitative SEM margin analysis was performed (200X) using defined criteria.
The median values of % "continuous margin" following TC and ML, respectively, were: OPT(98.6/96.2), CSE(95.4/90.9), BF(81.7/68.1), GB(81.1/65.0), OPA(83.0/68.1), OC(64.1/41.3), TSB(59.3/42.2), EB(57.1/42.6), IB(38.4/27.6), PLP(36.6/21.5), XV(45.0/30.0), AHO(17.7/5.4). Statistical evaluation (Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni adjustment, p < 0.05) revealed the following ranking for ML: OPT=CSE>BF=OPA=GB>OC=EB=TSB=XV =IB=PLP>AHO.
All one-bottle all-in-one adhesives exhibited statistically significant lower marginal qualities in enamel compared to the etch-and-rinse system OPF and the two-step self-etching system CSE. The results obtained for GB, OPA and BF, however, were better than for the other all-in-one adhesives.
通过热循环（TC）和机械负载（ML）评估使用当代单瓶一体化胶粘剂修复釉质 I 类修复体的边缘适应性。
制备 96 颗人离体磨牙（标准 I 类腔：3 毫米深，6 毫米宽近远中，4 毫米宽颊舌）。使用 12 种粘接系统：OptiBond FL（OPT）、Clearfil SE Bond（CSE）和 Adper Prompt L-Pop（PLP）作为对照，与 9 种单瓶一体化胶粘剂 - AdheSe One（AHO）、Adper Easy Bond（EB）、Bond Force（BF）、G-Bond（GB）、iBond Self Etch（IB）、One Coat 7.0（OC）、OptiBond All-in-one（OPA）、Clearfil Tri-S-Bond（TSB）、Xeno V（XV）进行比较。所有牙齿均使用 Filtek Z250 分三层（一层水平，两层倾斜）填充。在水储存 21 天后、热循环（2000 次循环：5°C 至 55°C）后和机械负载（150,000 次循环，50 N）后，对釉质边缘进行评估。在每个步骤之后，都制作了复制品，并使用定义的标准进行了定量 SEM 边缘分析（200X）。
分别经过 TC 和 ML 处理后，“连续边缘”的中位数百分比分别为：OPT（98.6/96.2）、CSE（95.4/90.9）、BF（81.7/68.1）、GB（81.1/65.0）、OPA（83.0/68.1）、OC（64.1/41.3）、TSB（59.3/42.2）、EB（57.1/42.6）、IB（38.4/27.6）、PLP（36.6/21.5）、XV（45.0/30.0）、AHO（17.7/5.4）。统计评估（Kruskal-Wallis 检验，Bonferroni 调整，p<0.05）显示 ML 下的以下排名：OPT=CSE>BF=OPA=GB>OC=EB=TSB=XV=IB=PLP>AHO。
与蚀刻-冲洗系统 OPT 和两步自酸蚀系统 CSE 相比，所有单瓶一体化胶粘剂在釉质中均显示出统计学上显著较低的边缘质量。然而，GB、OPA 和 BF 的结果优于其他一体化胶粘剂。
