Yazici A Ruya, Yildirim Zeren, Ertan Atila, Ozgunaltay Gül, Dayangac Berrin, Antonson Sibel A, Antonson Donald E
Department of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, TURKIYE.
Eur J Dent. 2012 Jul;6(3):280-6.
The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of several self-etch adhesives to their two-step predecessors to ground and unground enamel.
Seventy-five extracted, non-carious human third molar teeth were selected for this study. The buccal surfaces of each tooth were mechanically ground to obtain flat enamel surfaces (ground enamel), while the lingual surfaces were left intact (unground enamel). The teeth were randomly divided into five groups according to the adhesive systems (n=15): one-step self-etch adhesive - Clearfil S3 Bond, its two-step predecessor - Clearfil SE Bond, one-step self-etch adhesive - AdheSE One, and its two-step predecessor - AdheSE, and a two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive - Adper Single Bond 2(control). After application of the adhesives to the buccal and lingual enamel surfaces of each tooth, a cylindrical capsule filled with a hybrid composite resin (TPH) was seated against the surfaces. The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, followed by thermocy-cling (5°C-55°C/500 cycles). They were subjected to shear bond strength test in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/minute. The data were compared using a two-way ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni test at P<.05.
All adhesives exhibited statistically similar bond strengths to ground and unground enamel except for the etch-and-rinse adhesive that showed significantly higher bond strengths than the self-etch adhesives (P<.05). No significant differences in bond strength values were observed between ground and unground enamel for any of the adhesives tested (P=.17).
Similar bond strengths to ground and unground enamel were achieved with one-step self-etch adhesives and their predecessors. Enamel preparation did not influence the bonding performance of the adhesives tested.
本研究旨在比较几种自酸蚀粘结剂与其两步法前身产品对磨除和未磨除釉质的剪切粘结强度。
本研究选取了75颗拔除的、无龋坏的人类第三磨牙。每颗牙齿的颊面经机械磨除以获得平整的釉质表面(磨除釉质),而舌面保持完整(未磨除釉质)。根据粘结剂系统将牙齿随机分为五组(n = 15):一步法自酸蚀粘结剂——Clearfil S3 Bond,其两步法前身产品——Clearfil SE Bond,一步法自酸蚀粘结剂——AdheSE One,其两步法前身产品——AdheSE,以及一种两步法酸蚀冲洗粘结剂——Adper Single Bond 2(对照组)。在每颗牙齿的颊面和舌面釉质表面涂布粘结剂后,将一个装有混合复合树脂(TPH)的圆柱形胶囊放置在这些表面上。标本在37℃的蒸馏水中储存24小时,随后进行热循环(5℃ - 55℃/500次循环)。在万能试验机上以1.0毫米/分钟的十字头速度对它们进行剪切粘结强度测试。使用双向方差分析比较数据,随后进行P <.05的Bonferroni检验。
除酸蚀冲洗粘结剂显示出比自酸蚀粘结剂显著更高的粘结强度外(P <.05),所有粘结剂对磨除和未磨除釉质的粘结强度在统计学上相似。对于所测试的任何粘结剂,在磨除和未磨除釉质之间未观察到粘结强度值的显著差异(P = 0.17)。
一步法自酸蚀粘结剂及其前身产品对磨除和未磨除釉质具有相似的粘结强度。釉质预备不影响所测试粘结剂的粘结性能。