Lim Wanyi, Messer Louise B, Palamara Joseph E A
School Dental Service, Health Promotion Board, Singapore.
Melbourne Dental School, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Pediatr Dent. 2014 Jul-Aug;36(4):E111-7.
The purpose of this study was to examine in vitro the effect of cure mode on the shear bond strength (SBS), failure mode (FM), microleakage (ML), and resin tag penetration (RTP) of two resin composite (RC)/adhesive systems: (1) Clearfil Majesty Esthetic/Clearfil SE Bond (CME/SEB); and (2) TPH 3 Micro Matrix Restorative/Prime&Bond NT (TPH/P&B).
Paired RC samples (10 CME/SEB; 10 TPH/P&B) were precured or postcured with adhesive on primary molar dentinal substrates and tested for SBS (10 per group); debonded surfaces were examined. Cavities (Class V) in extracted primary molars were restored (20 CME/SEB; 20 TPH/P&B), following precuring or postcuring the adhesive, and examined for ML (eight per group) and RTP (two per group).
Mean SBS (MPa) values differed: precured CME/SEB exceeded postcured CME/SEB (20.16±2.70 versus 10.97±4.39; P<.001), and postcured TPH/P&B exceeded precured TPH/P&B (14.17±3.73 versus 11.10±2.62; P=.007). The FM differed between systems: CME/SEB: precured (four adhesive-dentin; six mixed), postcured (10 adhesive-dentin); TPH/P&B: precured (10 adhesive-dentin), postcured (nine adhesive-dentin; one mixed). Only one specimen showed true ML (postcured TPH/P&B). The RTP was greater in postcured than precured specimens.
Precured CME/SEB was deemed superior for restoration of primary teeth, despite extra time required clinically to precure the adhesive.
本研究的目的是在体外检测固化方式对两种树脂复合材料（RC）/粘结系统的剪切粘结强度（SBS）、失效模式（FM）、微渗漏（ML）和树脂突渗透（RTP）的影响，这两种系统分别为：（1）Clearfil Majesty Esthetic/Clearfil SE Bond（CME/SEB）；以及（2）TPH 3 Micro Matrix Restorative/Prime&Bond NT（TPH/P&B）。
将配对的RC样本（10个CME/SEB；10个TPH/P&B）在乳牙牙本质基质上用粘结剂进行预固化或后固化，并测试其SBS（每组10个）；检查脱粘表面。在对粘结剂进行预固化或后固化后，对拔除的乳牙中的窝洞（V类）进行修复（20个CME/SEB；20个TPH/P&B），并检查ML（每组8个）和RTP（每组2个）。
平均SBS（MPa）值有所不同：预固化的CME/SEB超过后固化的CME/SEB（20.16±2.70对10.97±4.39；P<.001），后固化的TPH/P&B超过预固化的TPH/P&B（14.17±3.73对11.10±2.62；P=.007）。不同系统之间的FM有所不同：CME/SEB：预固化（4个粘结剂-牙本质；6个混合），后固化（10个粘结剂-牙本质）；TPH/P&B：预固化（10个粘结剂-牙本质），后固化（9个粘结剂-牙本质；1个混合）。只有一个样本显示出真正的ML（后固化的TPH/P&B）。后固化样本中的RTP比预固化样本中的更大。
尽管临床上预固化粘结剂需要额外的时间，但预固化的CME/SEB被认为在乳牙修复方面更具优势。
