Department of Oral Health Sciences, University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
J Adhes Dent. 2013 Aug;15(4):317-24. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a29554.
To evaluate the effect of smear-layer interposition on the bonding effectiveness of self-etching adhesives with different etching potential.
Bur-cut dentin specimens were obtained from 25 human molars after preparation of the dentin surface with a medium-grit diamond bur (bur-cut). An additional 25 molars were fractured at the midcoronal dentin to create a smear-layer-free surface (smear-free dentin). The prepared teeth were assigned to 5 groups, according to the adhesive to be applied: a strong one-step self-etching adhesive (PLP, Adper Prompt L-Pop, 3M ESPE, pH = 0.8); two ultra-mild one-step self-etching adhesives (C3S, Clearfil Tri-S Bond, Kuraray, pH = 2.7; AEB, Adper Easy Bond, 3M ESPE; pH = 2.7 ); as the self-etching control, a mild two-step self-etching adhesive (CSE, Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray, pH of primer = 1.9); and as the etch-and-rinse control, a three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive (OFL, Optibond FL, Kerr). After composite buildups were made, all specimens were stored in distilled water (24 h/37°C) prior to microtensile bond strength testing (µTBS). The failure mode was determined with a stereomicroscope at 50X magnification. Representative µTBS specimens were processed for analysis in a Feg-SEM. The Kruskal-Wallis test was performed to determine statistical differences (p < 0.05).
Except for the strong one-step self-etching adhesive, all other self-etching adhesives (mild and ultramild) revealed a significantly lower bond strength to bur-cut dentin than to smear-free dentin. The etch-and-rinse adhesive presented the highest µTBS, which was not significantly different when bonded to bur-cut or smear-free dentin. Fracture analysis demonstrated a prevalence of adhesive failures for the self-etching adhesives, while OFL revealed more mixed failures. SEM revealed that smear debris remained part of the adhesive interfacial complex produced by the ultra-mild one-step self-etching adhesive C3S when applied on bur-cut dentin.
Smear debris interferes with the interaction of mild and ultra-mild self-etching adhesives with dentin.
评估不同蚀刻潜力的自酸蚀黏结剂的润饰层介入对黏结效果的影响。
用中粒度金刚石车针（车针切割）预备牙本质表面后，从 25 个人类磨牙中获得车针切割牙本质标本。另外 25 个磨牙在中冠牙本质处断裂，以创建无润饰层表面（无润饰层牙本质）。根据要应用的黏结剂，将制备好的牙齿分为 5 组：一种强力一步自酸蚀黏结剂（PLP，Adper Prompt L-Pop，3M ESPE，pH = 0.8）；两种超轻度一步自酸蚀黏结剂（C3S，Clearfil Tri-S Bond，Kuraray，pH = 2.7；AEB，Adper Easy Bond，3M ESPE；pH = 2.7）；作为自酸蚀对照，一种温和的两步自酸蚀黏结剂（CSE，Clearfil SE Bond，Kuraray，底胶 pH = 1.9）；以及作为蚀刻-冲洗对照，一种三步蚀刻-冲洗黏结剂（OFL，Optibond FL， Kerr）。复合树脂堆积完成后，所有标本均在蒸馏水中（24 h/37°C）储存，然后进行微拉伸黏结强度测试（µTBS）。在 50X 放大倍率的立体显微镜下确定失效模式。用代表性的 µTBS 标本进行 Feg-SEM 分析。采用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验确定统计学差异（p < 0.05）。
除了强力一步自酸蚀黏结剂外，所有其他自酸蚀黏结剂（温和和超温和）对车针切割牙本质的黏结强度均明显低于无润饰层牙本质。蚀刻-冲洗黏结剂表现出最高的 µTBS，当黏结于车针切割或无润饰层牙本质时，差异无统计学意义。断裂分析表明，自酸蚀黏结剂主要发生黏结失败，而 OFL 则主要发生混合失败。SEM 显示，当超轻度一步自酸蚀黏结剂 C3S 应用于车针切割牙本质时，润饰碎屑仍然是超轻度一步自酸蚀黏结剂产生的黏附性界面复合物的一部分。
润饰碎屑会干扰温和和超温和自酸蚀黏结剂与牙本质的相互作用。
Zotero 插件