三种不同龋蚀去除技术对龋损人牙本质微拉伸粘结强度的评价。
Evaluation of micro-tensile bond strength of caries-affected human dentine after three different caries removal techniques.
机构信息
Gaziantep University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Gaziantep, Turkey.
出版信息
J Dent. 2012 Oct;40(10):793-801. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.05.013. Epub 2012 Jun 9.
OBJECTIVE
This study evaluated the effect that different techniques for removing dental caries had on the strength of the microtensile bond to caries-affected human dentine created by three bonding agents.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-five human molar teeth containing carious lesions were randomly divided into three groups according to the technique that would be used to remove the caries: a conventional bur, an Er:YAG laser or a chemo-mechanical Carisolv(®) gel (n=15). Next, each of the three removal-technique groups was divided into three subgroups according to the bonding agents that would be used: Clearfil(®) SE Bond, G-Bond(®), or Adper(®) Single Bond 2 (n=5). Three 1mm(2) stick-shaped microtensile specimens from each tooth were prepared with a slow-speed diamond saw sectioning machine fitted with a diamond-rim blade (n=15 specimens). For each removal technique one dentine sample was analysed using scanning electron microscopy.
RESULTS
There were statistically significant differences in the resulting tensile strength of the bond among the techniques used to remove the caries and there were also statistically significant differences in the strength of the bond among the adhesive systems used. The etch-and-rinse adhesive system was the most affected by the technique used to remove the caries; of the three techniques tested, the chemo-mechanical removal technique worked best with the two-step self etch adhesive system.
CONCLUSION
The bond strength values of the etch-and-rinse adhesive system were affected by the caries removal techniques used in the present study. However, in the one- and two-step self etch adhesive systems, bond strength values were not affected by the caries removal techniques applied. While a chemo-mechanical caries removal technique, similar to Carisolv(®), may be suggested with self etch adhesive systems, in caries removal techniques with laser, etch-and-rinse systems might be preferred.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Caries removal methods may lead to differences in the characteristics of dentine surface. Dentine ultra structure generally affects the bonding of adhesive materials commonly used in restorative dentistry. Whereas etch-and-rinse system, like the ones used in the present study, are affected by these changes, the self etch systems are not affected. Hence, clinicians may opt for caries removal methods and systems appropriate for each patient and practice.
目的
本研究评估了不同去龋技术对三种粘结剂与龋损人牙本质间微拉伸粘结强度的影响。
材料与方法
45 颗含龋损的人磨牙随机根据去龋技术分为三组:常规车针、Er:YAG 激光或化学机械 Carisolv(®)凝胶(n=15)。然后,每组根据粘结剂进一步分为三组:Clearfil(®) SE Bond、G-Bond(®)或 Adper(®)Single Bond 2(n=5)。使用慢速金刚石锯片切割机和金刚石刃片制备每颗牙齿的 3 个 1mm(2)棒状微拉伸标本(n=15 个标本)。对每种去龋技术的一个牙本质样本进行扫描电镜分析。
结果
去龋技术对粘结强度有显著影响,粘结系统对粘结强度也有显著影响。在测试的三种技术中,化学机械去龋技术与两步自酸蚀粘结系统配合效果最好。
结论
在本研究中,使用的去龋技术对蚀刻-冲洗粘结系统的粘结强度值有影响。然而,在一步和两步自酸蚀粘结系统中,粘结强度值不受应用的去龋技术影响。虽然类似于 Carisolv(®)的化学机械去龋技术可能适用于自酸蚀粘结系统,但在激光去龋技术中,可能更倾向于使用蚀刻-冲洗系统。
临床意义
去龋方法可能会导致牙本质表面特性的差异。牙本质的超微结构通常会影响修复牙科中常用的粘结材料的粘结。虽然像本研究中使用的蚀刻-冲洗系统会受到这些变化的影响,但自酸蚀系统不受影响。因此,临床医生可能会根据每位患者和实践情况选择合适的去龋方法和系统。