Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zürich, Plattenstrasse 11, CH-8032 Zürich, Switzerland.
Clin Oral Investig. 2012 Aug;16(4):1081-8. doi: 10.1007/s00784-011-0594-z. Epub 2011 Jul 21.
This study evaluated the bond strengths of conventional (chemically and dual-polymerized) and simplified resin-based luting cements with their corresponding adhesives to superficial dentin (SD) and deep dentin (DD). Recently extracted third molars (N = 70, n = 10 per group) were obtained and prepared for testing procedures. After using their corresponding etchants, primers, and/or adhesive systems, the conventional and simplified cements (Variolink II [group A, conventional], Bifix QM [group B, conventional], Panavia F2.0 [group C, conventional], Multilink Automix [group D, simplified], Superbond C&B [group E, conventional], Clearfil Esthetic Cement [group F, simplified], Ketac-Fil [group G, conventional]) were adhered incrementally onto the dentin surfaces using polyethylene molds (inner diameter 3.5 mm, height 5 mm) and polymerized accordingly. Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) acted as the control material. Shear bond strengths (1 mm/min) were determined after 500 times of thermocycling. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to analyze the data (α = 0.05). Bond strength (MPa) results were significantly affected by the cement types and their corresponding adhesive systems (p ≤ 0.05). The shear bond strengths (MPa ± SD) for groups A-G were 14.6 ± 3.8, 18.9 ± 3.9, 5.5 ± 4.5, 3.1 ± 3.6, 1.1 ± 2.5, 15.5 ± 2.6, 7 ± 4.3 and 7.1 ± 5.8, 15.1 ± 7.8, 8.4 ± 7.3, 7.5 ± 7.3, 4.9 ± 5.1, 12.5 ± 2.1, 6 ± 2.6 for SD and DD, respectively. The level of dentin depth did not decrease the bond strength significantly (p > 0.05) for all cements, except for Variolink II (p < 0.05). On the SD, bond strength of resin cements with "etch-and-rinse" adhesive systems (Variolink II, Bifix QM, Super-Bond C&B) showed similar results being higher than those of the simplified ones. Simplified cements and RMGIC as control material showed inferior adhesion to superficial and deep dentin compared to conventional resin cements tested.
本研究评估了传统（化学和双重聚合）和简化树脂基水门汀及其相应的胶粘剂对浅牙本质（SD）和深牙本质（DD）的粘结强度。最近提取的第三磨牙（N = 70，每组 n = 10）被获得并准备进行测试程序。在用相应的蚀刻剂、底漆和/或胶粘剂系统处理后，将传统和简化水门汀（组 A，传统，Variolink II；组 B，传统，Bifix QM；组 C，传统，Panavia F2.0；组 D，简化，Multilink Automix；组 E，传统，Superbond C&B；组 F，简化，Clearfil Esthetic Cement；组 G，传统，Ketac-Fil）分别用聚乙烯模具（内径 3.5mm，高 5mm）逐层粘结在牙本质表面上，并相应聚合。树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（RMGIC）作为对照材料。经过 500 次热循环后，测定剪切粘结强度（1mm/min）。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney 检验分析数据（α=0.05）。水门汀类型及其相应的胶粘剂系统显著影响粘结强度（p≤0.05）。组 A-G 的剪切粘结强度（MPa±SD）为 14.6±3.8、18.9±3.9、5.5±4.5、3.1±3.6、1.1±2.5、15.5±2.6、7±4.3 和 7.1±5.8、15.1±7.8、8.4±7.3、7.5±7.3、4.9±5.1、12.5±2.1、6±2.6，用于 SD 和 DD。除了 Variolink II（p<0.05）外，所有水门汀在浅牙本质和深牙本质深度上的粘结强度均无显著降低（p>0.05）。在 SD 上，具有“酸蚀-冲洗”胶粘剂系统（Variolink II、Bifix QM、Super-Bond C&B）的树脂水门汀的粘结强度显示出高于简化水门汀的相似结果。与所测试的传统树脂水门汀相比，简化水门汀和 RMGIC 作为对照材料对浅牙本质和深牙本质的粘附性较差。
