Hipólito Vinicius Di, Alonso Roberta Caroline Bruschi, Carrilho Marcela Rocha de Oliveira, Anauate Netto Camillo, Sinhoreti Mário Alexandre Coelho, Goes Mario Fernando de
Dental Research Group, Dental School, Bandeirante University of São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Braz Dent J. 2011;22(2):122-8. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000200006.
This study evaluated the bonding characteristics to ground and unground enamel obtained with different strategies. For this purpose, 24 sound third-molars were bisected mesiodistally to obtain tooth halves. A flat enamel area was delimited in the tooth sections, which were randomly distributed into 8 groups (n=6), according to the enamel condition (ground and unground) and adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2; Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP; Adper Prompt - AD; Clearfil SE Bond - SE). Each system was applied according manufacturers' instructions and a 6-mm-high resin composite "crown" was incrementally built up on bonded surfaces. Hourglass-shaped specimens with 0.8 mm(2) cross-section were produced. Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) was recorded and the failure patterns were classified. Results were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There were no statistically significant differences among the μTBS values of SB2, PLP and AD (p>0.05). SE values were significantly lower (p0.05). There was prevalence of cohesive failure within enamel, adhesive system and resin composite for SB2. The self-etch systems produced higher incidence of cohesive failures in the adhesive system. Enamel condition did not determine significant differences on bonding characteristics for the same bonding system. In conclusion, the bonding systems evaluated in this study resulted in specific μTBS and failure patterns due to the particular interaction with enamel.
本研究评估了采用不同策略获得的与磨除和未磨除釉质的粘结特性。为此,将24颗完好的第三磨牙近远中向劈开以获得半颗牙齿。在牙齿切片中划定一个平坦的釉质区域,根据釉质状况(磨除和未磨除)和粘结系统(Adper Single Bond 2 - SB2;Adper Prompt L-Pop - PLP;Adper Prompt - AD;Clearfil SE Bond - SE)将其随机分为8组(n = 6)。按照制造商的说明应用每种系统,并在粘结表面逐步堆积一个6毫米高的树脂复合材料“冠”。制作了横截面为0.8平方毫米的沙漏形标本。记录微拉伸粘结强度(μTBS)并对失败模式进行分类。结果通过双向方差分析和Tukey检验进行分析(α = 0.05)。SB2、PLP和AD的μTBS值之间无统计学显著差异(p>0.05)。SE值显著较低(p<0.05)。对于SB2,釉质、粘结系统和树脂复合材料内粘结失败占主导。自酸蚀系统在粘结系统中产生更高的粘结失败发生率。对于相同的粘结系统,釉质状况并未决定粘结特性的显著差异。总之,本研究中评估的粘结系统由于与釉质的特定相互作用而导致特定的μTBS和失败模式。