Suppr超能文献

修复微混合体、纳米混合体和纳米填充树脂复合材料的粘结强度:基底树脂类型、表面处理和老化的影响。

Repair bond strength of microhybrid, nanohybrid and nanofilled resin composites: effect of substrate resin type, surface conditioning and ageing.

机构信息

Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Materials Science, University of Zürich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zürich, Switzerland.

出版信息

Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Sep;17(7):1751-8. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0863-5. Epub 2012 Oct 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This study evaluated the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of non-aged and aged resin-based composites (RBC) (nanohybrid and nanofilled) after two surface conditioning methods, repaired using the composite of the same kind or a microhybrid composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Nanohybrid (Tetric EvoCeram--TE) and nanofilled (Filtek Supreme--FS) RBC blocks (5 × 5 × 6 mm) (N = 128) were fabricated and randomly divided into two groups: (a) no ageing (control group) and (b) ageing (5.000 thermocycling, 5-55 °C). RBC surfaces were polished by up to 1,200-grit silicone carbide papers and conditioned with either (a) air abrasion with 30-μm SiO2 particles (CoJet Sand) for 4 s + silane coupling agent (ESPE-Sil) + adhesive resin (VisioBond) (n = 16) or (b) adhesive application only (Multilink A+B for TE; Adper ScotchBond 1XT for FS) (n = 16). In half of the groups, repair resin of the same kind with the RBC and, in the other half, a different kind of composite (microhybrid, Quadrant Anterior Shine--AS) with its corresponding adhesive (Quadrant UniBond) was used. The specimens were submitted to MTBS test (0.5 mm/min). Data were analysed using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's tests. Degree of conversion (DC) of non-aged and aged resin composites (TE, FS) (n = 3 per group) was measured by micro-Raman analyses.

RESULTS

RBC type (p = 0.001) and ageing affected the MTBS results significantly (p = 0.001). Surface conditioning type did not show significant difference (p = 0.726), but less number of pre-test failures was experienced with the CoJet system compared to adhesive resin application only. Repair strength on aged TE showed significantly less (p < 0.05) MTBS than for FS. FS repaired with the same kind of RBC and adhesive resin presented the highest cohesive failures (43 %). DC was higher for TE (71 %) than for FS (58 %) before ageing.

CONCLUSION

On the aged RBCs, less favourable repair strength could be expected especially for nanohybrid composite. For repair actions, RBC surface conditioning could be accomplished with either adhesive resin application only or with CoJet system, providing that the latter resulted in less pre-test failures.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Clinicians could condition the resin surface prior to repair or relayering with either CoJet system or adhesive resin application only, depending on the availability of the system.

摘要

目的

本研究评估了两种表面处理方法后,非老化和老化的树脂基复合材料(RBC)(纳米复合和纳米填充)的微拉伸结合强度(MTBS),并用同种复合材料或微混合复合材料进行修复。

材料和方法

制备纳米复合(Tetric EvoCeram-TE)和纳米填充(Filtek Supreme-FS)RBC 块(5×5×6 mm)(N=128),并随机分为两组:(a)无老化(对照组)和(b)老化(5000 次热循环,5-55°C)。用 1200 号碳化硅砂纸对 RBC 表面进行抛光,然后用以下两种方法之一进行处理:(a)用 30-μm SiO2 颗粒(CoJet Sand)进行喷砂处理 4 秒+硅烷偶联剂(ESPE-Sil)+粘合树脂(VisioBond)(n=16),或(b)仅使用粘合处理(TE 用 Multilink A+B;FS 用 Adper ScotchBond 1XT)(n=16)。在一半的组中,使用与 RBC 相同类型的修复树脂,而在另一半组中,使用不同类型的复合材料(微混合,Quadrant Anterior Shine-AS)及其相应的粘合剂(Quadrant UniBond)。将样品进行 MTBS 测试(0.5 mm/min)。使用三因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验对数据进行分析。通过微拉曼分析测量非老化和老化的树脂复合材料(TE、FS)(每组 n=3)的转化率(DC)。

结果

RBC 类型(p=0.001)和老化显著影响 MTBS 结果(p=0.001)。表面处理类型无显著差异(p=0.726),但与仅使用粘合树脂处理相比,CoJet 系统的预测试失败次数更少。老化后的 TE 修复的 MTBS 明显低于 FS(p<0.05)。用同种 RBC 和粘合树脂修复的 FS 呈现出最高的内聚性失效(43%)。TE 的 DC 比 FS 高(71%比 58%),在老化前。

结论

对于老化的 RBC,特别是纳米复合的修复强度可能会较差。对于修复操作,可以使用粘合树脂应用或 CoJet 系统来完成 RBC 表面处理,只要后者导致的预测试失败更少。

临床意义

临床医生可以根据系统的可用性,在修复或重新涂覆之前,使用 CoJet 系统或粘合树脂应用仅对树脂表面进行处理。

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