Suppr超能文献

不同黏结策略对树脂复合材料与复合牙本质复合体黏结强度的影响。

Effect of different adhesion strategies on bond strength of resin composite to composite-dentin complex.

机构信息

University of Zürich, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, Zürich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Oper Dent. 2013 Jan-Feb;38(1):63-72. doi: 10.2341/11-482-L. Epub 2012 Jul 19.

Abstract

Service life of discolored and abraded resin composite restorations could be prolonged by repair or relayering actions. Composite-composite adhesion can be achieved successfully using some surface conditioning methods, but the most effective adhesion protocol for relayering is not known when the composite restorations are surrounded with dentin. This study evaluated the effect of three adhesion strategies on the bond strength of resin composite to the composite-dentin complex. Intact maxillary central incisors (N=72, n=8 per subgroup) were collected and the coronal parts of the teeth were embedded in autopolymerized poly(methyl tfr54methacrylate) surrounded by a polyvinyl chloride cylinder. Cylindrical cavities (diameter: 2.6 mm; depth: 2 mm) were opened in the middle of the labial surfaces of the teeth using a standard diamond bur, and the specimens were randomly divided into three groups. Two types of resin composite, namely microhybrid (Quadrant Anterior Shine; AS) and nanohybrid (Grandio; G), were photo-polymerized incrementally in the cavities according to each manufacturer's recommendations. The composite-enamel surfaces were ground finished to 1200-grit silicone carbide paper until the dentin was exposed. The surfaces of the substrate composites and the surrounding dentin were conditioned according to one of the following adhesion protocols: protocol 1: acid-etching (dentin) + silica coating (composite) + silanization (composite) + primer (dentin) + bonding agent (dentin + composite); protocol 2: silica coating (composite) + acid-etching (dentin) + silanization (composite) + primer (dentin) + bonding agent (dentin + composite); and protocol 3: acid-etching (dentin) + primer (dentin) + silanization (composite) + bonding agent (dentin + composite). Applied primer and bonding agents were the corresponding materials of the composite manufacturer. Silica coating (CoJet sand, 30 μm) was achieved using a chairside air-abrasion device (distance: 10 mm; duration: four seconds in circular motion). After conditioning protocols, the repair resin was adhered to the substrate surfaces using transparent polyethylene molds (diameter: 3.6 mm) incrementally and photo-polymerized. The substrate-adherend combinations were as follows: AS-AS, G-G, AS-G. Shear force was applied to the adhesive interface in a Universal Testing Machine (crosshead speed: 1 mm/min). The types of failures were further evaluated and categorized as follows: 1) cohesive in the composite substrate and 2) adhesive at the interface. Bond strength values (MPa) were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and least significant difference post hoc tests (α=0.05). Significant effects of the adhesion strategy (p=0.006) and the composite type (p=0.000) were found. Interaction terms were not significant (p=0.292). Regardless of the substrate-adherend combination, protocol 1 (17-22 MPa) showed significantly higher results than did protocols 2 (15-17 MPa) and 3 (11-17 MPa) (p=0.028, p=0.002, respectively). The highest results were obtained from the G-G combination after all three protocols (17-22 MPa). The incidence of cohesive failures was more common when the substrate and the adherend were the same composite type (AS-AS: 87.5%, 87.5%, 75%; G-G: 100%, 75%, 50% for protocols 1, 2, and 3, respectively). When substrate and adherend were used interchangeably, adhesive failures were more frequent (25%, 50%, and 100% for protocol 1, 2, and 3, respectively). When the substrate and the adherend are of the same type, greater repair strength could be expected. In the repair of composites next to the dentin, depending on the composite type, conditioning the composite with silica coating and silanization after etching the dentin adds to the repair strength compared to the results obtained with silane application only.

摘要

修复或重衬可以延长变色和磨损的树脂复合修复体的使用寿命。使用一些表面处理方法可以成功实现复合-复合之间的黏附,但当复合修复体周围有牙本质时,尚不清楚用于重衬的最有效黏附方案。本研究评估了三种黏附策略对树脂复合体与复合-牙本质复合体之间黏接强度的影响。收集完整的上颌中切牙(N=72,每组 8 个),并用自聚合聚甲基 tfr54 甲基丙烯酸酯(周围为聚氯乙烯圆柱体)将牙齿的冠部部分包埋。使用标准金刚石钻头在牙齿的唇面中间打开圆柱形腔(直径:2.6mm;深度:2mm),然后将标本随机分为三组。根据制造商的建议,将两种类型的树脂复合材料,即微混合(Quadrant Anterior Shine;AS)和纳米混合(Grandio;G),依次分层光聚合到腔中。将复合-釉质表面研磨至 1200 号碳化硅砂纸,直到暴露牙本质。根据以下黏附方案之一处理基底复合材料和周围牙本质的表面:方案 1:酸蚀(牙本质)+二氧化硅涂层(复合)+硅烷化(复合)+底胶(牙本质)+黏结剂(牙本质+复合);方案 2:二氧化硅涂层(复合)+酸蚀(牙本质)+硅烷化(复合)+底胶(牙本质)+黏结剂(牙本质+复合);方案 3:酸蚀(牙本质)+底胶(牙本质)+硅烷化(复合)+黏结剂(牙本质+复合)。应用的底胶和黏结剂是相应的复合制造商的材料。使用椅旁空气喷砂设备(距离:10mm;持续时间:圆形运动中四秒)实现二氧化硅涂层(CoJet 砂,30μm)。在处理方案后,使用透明聚乙烯模具(直径:3.6mm)将修复树脂逐渐附着到基底表面并进行光聚合。基底-黏附体组合如下:AS-AS、G-G、AS-G。在万能试验机上(十字头速度:1mm/min)向黏附界面施加剪切力。进一步评估和分类失效类型如下:1)复合体内聚破坏,2)界面黏附破坏。使用双向方差分析和最小显著差异事后检验(α=0.05)对黏接强度值(MPa)进行统计学分析。发现黏附策略(p=0.006)和复合类型(p=0.000)有显著影响。交互项没有显著影响(p=0.292)。无论基底-黏附体组合如何,方案 1(17-22MPa)的结果均明显高于方案 2(15-17MPa)和方案 3(11-17MPa)(p=0.028,p=0.002)。在所有三种方案后,均获得了最高的结果,即 G-G 组合(17-22MPa)。当基底和黏附体是相同的复合类型时,更常见的是内聚破坏(AS-AS:87.5%、87.5%、75%;G-G:100%、75%、50%,方案 1、2 和 3)。当基底和黏附体可互换使用时,黏附破坏更常见(方案 1、2 和 3 分别为 25%、50%和 100%)。当基底和黏附体为同一类型时,可预期更高的修复强度。在牙本质附近的复合材料修复中,根据复合类型,在酸蚀牙本质后用二氧化硅涂层和硅烷化处理复合材料,与仅使用硅烷处理相比,可增加修复强度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验