使用染料渗透试验检测自酸蚀黏结剂对龋损牙本质的微拉伸黏结强度。

Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo Egypt.

J Adhes Dent. 2012 Jun;14(3):245-50. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a22420.

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to compare microshear bond strength (µSBS) of different adhesives to normal dentin (ND) and caries-affected dentin (AD) as differentiated using the dye permeability test.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred freshly extracted carious teeth were ground to expose normal and cariesaffected dentin. Differentiation between both substrates was carried out using microhardness and a new dye permeability method. Ground teeth were divided into 5 groups according to the adhesive tested; Clearfil SE Bond (SE), Clearfil DC Bond (DC) (Kuraray), Bond Force (BF) (Tokuyama), AdheseOne (AH) (Ivoclar), Adper Prompt-L-pop (PR) (3M ESPE). Adhesives were applied to selected substrate, and composite cylinders (0.9 mm diameter x 0.7 mm length) were formed. After 24 h, specimens were subjected to microshear testing at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Failure modes were determined using a stereomicroscope at 40X magnification. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests.

RESULTS

Normal dentin was permeable for the dye, while caries-affected dentin was impermeable. Vickers hardness numbers (VHN) for normal and caries-affected dentin were 63.98 ± 3.24 and 62.40 ± 3.49 respectively, which were not significantly different (p > 0.05). µSBS values were: SE-ND = 22.34 ± 6.4, SE-AD = 18.70 ± 4.0, BF-ND = 24.52 ± 4.9, BF-AD = 18.31 ± 4.9, DC-ND = 24.49 ± 8.0, DC-AD = 18.97 ± 9.4, AH-ND = 17.21 ± 6.8, AH-AD = 17.03 ± 10.3, PR-ND = 13.67 ± 4.4, PR-AD = 7.31 ± 2.4 MPa. A statistically significant difference was found among the adhesive systems to both normal (p < 0.01) and caries-affected dentin (p < 0.001). However, µSBS of SE, DC, and AH adhesives to normal dentin were not significantly different from those of caries-affected dentin (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The permeability test was an effective tool to differentiate between normal and caries-affected dentin. Some adhesive systems showed no significant difference in their bond to normal or affected dentin.

目的

本研究旨在使用染料渗透性试验比较不同粘结剂在正常牙本质（ND）和龋损牙本质（AD）上的微剪切粘结强度（µSBS）。

材料和方法

从 100 颗新鲜拔出的龋坏牙上磨下暴露的正常牙本质和龋损牙本质。使用显微硬度和新的染料渗透性方法对两种基质进行区分。根据所测试的粘结剂将磨碎的牙齿分为 5 组；Clearfil SE Bond（SE），Clearfil DC Bond（DC）（Kuraray），Bond Force（BF）（Tokuyama），AdheseOne（AH）（Ivoclar），Adper Prompt-L-pop（PR）（3M ESPE）。将粘结剂应用于选定的基质上，并形成复合圆柱体（0.9mm 直径×0.7mm 长度）。24 小时后，以 0.5mm/min 的十字头速度对样品进行微剪切测试。使用立体显微镜在 40X 放大倍数下确定失效模式。使用 Kruskal-Wallis 和 Mann-Whitney U 检验分析数据。

结果

正常牙本质对染料具有渗透性，而龋损牙本质则无渗透性。正常牙本质和龋损牙本质的维氏硬度值（VHN）分别为 63.98±3.24 和 62.40±3.49，无显著性差异（p＞0.05）。µSBS 值分别为：SE-ND=22.34±6.4，SE-AD=18.70±4.0，BF-ND=24.52±4.9，BF-AD=18.31±4.9，DC-ND=24.49±8.0，DC-AD=18.97±9.4，AH-ND=17.21±6.8，AH-AD=17.03±10.3，PR-ND=13.67±4.4，PR-AD=7.31±2.4MPa。粘结剂系统对正常牙本质（p＜0.01）和龋损牙本质（p＜0.001）均有显著差异。然而，SE、DC 和 AH 粘结剂在正常牙本质上的µSBS 与龋损牙本质上的µSBS 无显著差异（p＞0.05）。