Zorba Yahya Orcun, Ilday Nurcan Ozakar, Bayındır Yusuf Ziya, Demirbuga Sezer
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkiye.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkiye.
Eur J Dent. 2013 Oct;7(4):436-441. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.120679.
The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that different surface conditioning (etch and rinse and self-etch) and curing techniques (light cure/dual cure) had no effect on the shear bond strength of direct and indirect composite inlays.
A total of 112 extracted human molar teeth were horizontally sectioned and randomly divided into two groups according to restoration technique (direct and indirect restorations). Each group was further subdivided into seven subgroups (n = 8) according to bonding agent (etch and rinse adhesives Scotchbond multi-purpose plus, All-Bond 3, Adper Single Bond and Prime Bond NT; and self-etch adhesives Clearfil Liner Bond, Futurabond DC and G bond). Indirect composites were cemented to dentin surfaces using dual-curing luting cement. Shear bond strength of specimens was tested using a Universal Testing Machine. Two samples from each subgroup were evaluated under Scanning electron microscopy to see the failing modes. Data was analyzed using independent sample t-tests and Tukey's tests.
Surface conditioning and curing of bonding agents were all found to have significant effects on shear bond strength (P < 0.05) of both direct and indirect composite inlays. With direct restoration, etch and rinse systems and dual-cured bonding agents yielded higher bond strengths than indirect restoration, self-etch systems and light-cured bonding agents.
The results of the present study indicated that direct restoration to be a more reliable method than indirect restoration. Although etch and rinse bonding systems showed higher shear bond strength to dentin than self-etch systems, both systems can be safely used for the adhesion of direct as well as indirect restorations.
本研究旨在检验零假设，即不同的表面处理（酸蚀冲洗和自酸蚀）及固化技术（光固化/双重固化）对直接和间接复合嵌体的剪切粘结强度没有影响。
总共112颗拔除的人类磨牙被水平切开，并根据修复技术（直接修复和间接修复）随机分为两组。每组再根据粘结剂进一步细分为七个亚组（n = 8）（酸蚀冲洗粘结剂Scotchbond multi-purpose plus、All-Bond 3、Adper Single Bond和Prime Bond NT；以及自酸蚀粘结剂Clearfil Liner Bond、Futurabond DC和G bond）。间接复合材料使用双重固化粘结水门汀粘结到牙本质表面。使用万能试验机测试样本的剪切粘结强度。每个亚组的两个样本在扫描电子显微镜下进行评估以观察失效模式。数据使用独立样本t检验和Tukey检验进行分析。
发现粘结剂的表面处理和固化对直接和间接复合嵌体的剪切粘结强度均有显著影响（P < 0.05）。对于直接修复，酸蚀冲洗系统和双重固化粘结剂产生的粘结强度高于间接修复、自酸蚀系统和光固化粘结剂。
本研究结果表明，直接修复是比间接修复更可靠的方法。尽管酸蚀冲洗粘结系统对牙本质的剪切粘结强度高于自酸蚀系统，但两种系统都可安全用于直接和间接修复体的粘结。
