Erkut Selim, Yilmaz Burak, Bagis Bora, Küçükeşmen Cigdem, Ozdemir Erdem, Acar Ozlem
Associate Professor, Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Assistant Professor, Division of Restorative and Prosthetic Dentistry, The Ohio State University College of Dentistry, Columbus, Ohio.
J Prosthet Dent. 2014 Oct;112(4):949-56. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2014.05.001. Epub 2014 Jun 14.
Different techniques have been suggested for cleaning dentin surfaces after the removal of an interim prosthesis and before the application of a bonding agent. How different surface-cleaning techniques affect the bond strength of the composite resin restorations is not clear.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of different surface-cleaning techniques on the bond strength of composite resin restorations and the surface topography of the prepared tooth surfaces.
The occlusal surfaces of 25 molars were ground until the dentin was exposed. A bonding agent and interim cement were applied on the teeth. The teeth were divided into 5 groups (n=5) according to the method used for surface-cleaning (microairborne-particle abrasion, alcohol, rubber-rotary instrument, desiccating agent, and control). Once the surfaces of the teeth had been cleaned, the same bonding material was applied to the teeth. A 5-mm-thick composite resin layer was built up. Each specimen was sectioned to microbars, and 6 centrally located beams were selected for microtensile testing (n=30) (1.10 ±0.10 mm). The data were statistically analyzed with 1-way ANOVA (1-sample Kolmogorov-Smirnov test). The Bonferroni test was used for significantly different groups (α=.05). One specimen from each group was observed under a scanning electron microscope and an atomic force microscope. Energy dispersive x-ray analysis also was performed.
Bond strength values were in the following descending order: microairborne-particle abrasion, desiccating agent, alcohol, rubber-rotary instrument, control. Differences between the microairborne-particle abrasion group and the remainder of the groups, desiccating agent--rubber-rotary instrument, desiccating agent-control, alcohol--rubber-rotary instrument, and alcohol-control groups, were statistically significant (P<.05). The microairborne-particle abrasion group displayed the roughest surface and a different surface topography from the remainder of the groups. Increased aluminum was observed in the microairborne-particle abrasion group.
Surface-cleaning techniques, except for the rubber-rotary instrument, increased the bond strength of composite resin. The roughest dentin surfaces and highest bond strength were achieved with the microairborne-particle abrasion technique.
对于在去除临时修复体后且在应用粘结剂之前清洁牙本质表面，已经提出了不同的技术。不同的表面清洁技术如何影响复合树脂修复体的粘结强度尚不清楚。
本研究的目的是调查不同的表面清洁技术对复合树脂修复体粘结强度以及预备牙表面形貌的影响。
磨除25颗磨牙的咬合面直至牙本质暴露。在牙齿上应用粘结剂和临时粘结剂。根据表面清洁方法（微型空气颗粒喷砂、酒精、橡皮轮器械、干燥剂和对照组）将牙齿分为5组（n = 5）。一旦牙齿表面清洁完毕，将相同的粘结材料应用于牙齿。构建一个5毫米厚的复合树脂层。将每个标本切成微条，并选择6个位于中心的梁进行微拉伸测试（n = 30）（1.10±0.10毫米）。数据采用单因素方差分析（单样本柯尔莫哥洛夫-斯米尔诺夫检验）进行统计学分析。使用Bonferroni检验对差异有统计学意义的组（α = 0.05）进行分析。每组取一个标本在扫描电子显微镜和原子力显微镜下观察。还进行了能量色散X射线分析。
粘结强度值按以下降序排列：微型空气颗粒喷砂、干燥剂、酒精、橡皮轮器械、对照组。微型空气颗粒喷砂组与其余组之间、干燥剂-橡皮轮器械组、干燥剂-对照组、酒精-橡皮轮器械组和酒精-对照组之间的差异具有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。微型空气颗粒喷砂组显示出最粗糙的表面，且表面形貌与其余组不同。在微型空气颗粒喷砂组中观察到铝含量增加。
除橡皮轮器械外，表面清洁技术提高了复合树脂的粘结强度。微型空气颗粒喷砂技术获得了最粗糙的牙本质表面和最高的粘结强度。
