Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, Center for Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.
J Dent. 2012 Oct;40(10):851-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.07.003. Epub 2012 Jul 16.
To compare the protective potential of a conventional adhesive, a caries infiltrant and a combination of both against acidic challenge in vitro.
One-hundred-and-fifty discs from bovine lower central incisors were fabricated. Seventy-five samples remained untreated, whereas the other half was subjected to a demineralisation process (14 days, acidic buffer, and pH 5) to create artificial enamel lesions. Specimens were then radioactively irradiated, and each 15 sound and demineralised specimens were treated with a caries infiltrant (Icon, DMG), an unfilled adhesive (Heliobond, IvoclarVivadent) or a combination of infiltrant and adhesive. Specimens treated with the adhesive followed by a flowable composite (TetricEvoFlow, IvoclarVivadent) served as positive control, while untreated specimens served as negative control. All samples were then subjected to lactic acid for 3 weeks at pH 4. Loss of apatite was determined using the radiochemical method of liquid scintillation. Data were statistically analysed by Kruskal-Wallis-test, one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's post hoc tests (p ≤.05).
In both sound enamel and artificial caries lesions, untreated specimens showed the highest rate of apatite loss, whereas enamel treated with the adhesive and the flowable composite showed almost complete protection surface against dissolution. The caries infiltrant, the adhesive and the combination of both were able to decrease enamel dissolution, but the adhesive and the combination of adhesive and infiltrant were more effective than the infiltrant alone.
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the application of an adhesive (alone or in combination with the caries infiltrant) is more effective to protect enamel dissolution than the infiltrant alone.
比较传统黏合剂、龋蚀渗透剂和两者联合应用对体外酸性挑战的保护潜能。
从牛下中切牙制备 150 个牙面。75 个样本未经处理，另一半进行脱矿处理（14 天，酸性缓冲液，pH 值 5）以形成人工釉质龋损。然后对标本进行放射性照射，每个 15 个完好和脱矿的标本分别用龋蚀渗透剂（Icon，DMG）、未填充黏合剂（Heliobond，Ivoclar Vivadent）或渗透剂和黏合剂联合处理。用黏合剂处理后再用流动复合树脂（Tetric EvoFlow，Ivoclar Vivadent）处理的标本作为阳性对照，未经处理的标本作为阴性对照。所有标本随后在 pH 值 4 下用乳酸处理 3 周。使用放射性化学液闪法测定磷灰石损失。数据采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验、单因素方差分析和 Scheffe 事后检验进行统计学分析（p ≤.05）。
在完好釉质和人工龋损中，未经处理的标本磷灰石损失率最高，而用黏合剂和流动复合树脂处理的釉质几乎完全保护表面免受溶解。龋蚀渗透剂、黏合剂和两者联合应用都能减少釉质溶解，但黏合剂和黏合剂联合渗透剂的效果比渗透剂单独应用更有效。
在本体外研究的限制范围内，应用黏合剂（单独或与龋蚀渗透剂联合应用）比单独应用渗透剂更能有效保护釉质溶解。
