Cairo University, Restorative, Cairo, Egypt.
Oper Dent. 2013 Jul-Aug;38(4):408-18. doi: 10.2341/12-061-L. Epub 2012 Oct 30.
To investigate the effect of silane primer application, intermediate adhesive agent/repair composite, and storage period on the interfacial microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of repaired silorane-based resin composite compared with unrepaired composites and on the nanoleakage.
Forty-eight 1-month-old substrate specimens from Filtek P90 were roughened, etched, and distributed over two groups (n=24) based on receiving silane (Clearfil Ceramic Primer) or not. Then, half of the specimens (n=12) were repaired with P90 System Adhesive/Filtek P90 and the other half with Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose adhesive/Filtek Z250 resin composite. Within each repair category, repaired specimens were stored in artificial saliva at 37°C for either 24 hours (n=6) or two years before being serially sectioned into sticks (0.6 ± 0.01 mm(2)). From each specimen, two sticks were prepared for nanoleakage determination and four sticks were used for μTBS testing. Additional unrepaired specimens from each composite (n=12) were made to determine the cohesive strength at 24 hours and two years. Mean μTBS were calculated and statistically analyzed. Modes of failure were also determined.
General linear model analysis revealed no significant effect for the silane priming, intermediate adhesive agent/repair composite, and storage period or for their interactions on the μTBS values of the repaired specimens. There was no significant difference between the cohesive strength of Filtek P90 and Filtek Z250; both were significantly higher than all repaired categories. At 24 hours, nanoleakage was not detected when silorane-based composite was repaired with the same material. However, after two years, all repair categories showed nanoleakage.
Silane application has no effect on μTBS and nanoleakage. Durability of the interfacial bond of repaired silorane-based resin composite appeared successful regardless of the chemistry of the intermediate adhesive agent/composite used for repair. However, nanoleakage was detected early when a different repair intermediate adhesive agent/composite was used.
研究硅烷底漆应用、中间粘接剂/修复复合材料和储存期对修复前后硅烷基树脂复合材料界面微拉伸粘结强度（μTBS）的影响，并研究纳米渗漏情况。
从 Filtek P90 基质样本中随机抽取 48 个 1 个月大的样本，对其进行粗化、蚀刻，并根据是否接受硅烷（Clearfil Ceramic Primer）处理将其分为两组（n=24）。然后，一半样本（n=12）用 P90 系统胶/ Filtek P90 修复，另一半用 Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose 胶/ Filtek Z250 树脂复合材料修复。在每种修复类型中，将修复后的样本在 37°C 的人工唾液中储存 24 小时（n=6）或两年，然后将其连续切片成棒（0.6±0.01mm²）。从每个样本中，制备两个棒用于纳米渗漏检测，制备四个棒用于 μTBS 测试。从每种复合材料中再制备未修复的额外样本（n=12），以确定 24 小时和两年时的内聚强度。计算平均 μTBS 值并进行统计分析。还确定了失效模式。
一般线性模型分析表明，硅烷预处理、中间粘接剂/修复复合材料、储存期及其相互作用对修复样本的 μTBS 值均无显著影响。Filtek P90 和 Filtek Z250 的内聚强度无显著差异；两者均显著高于所有修复类别。24 小时时，当用相同材料修复硅烷基复合材料时，未检测到纳米渗漏。然而，两年后，所有修复类别均出现纳米渗漏。
硅烷处理对 μTBS 和纳米渗漏无影响。无论用于修复的中间粘接剂/复合材料的化学性质如何，修复后的硅烷基树脂复合材料界面粘结的耐久性似乎都成功了。然而，当使用不同的修复中间粘接剂/复合材料时，早期就检测到纳米渗漏。
