Suppr超能文献

在pH循环条件下自酸蚀粘接剂的牙釉质与牙本质粘接强度、界面超微形态及氟离子释放

Enamel and dentin bond strength, interfacial ultramorphology and fluoride ion release of self-etching adhesives during a pH-cycling regime.

作者信息

Pinto Cristiane Franco, Vermelho Paulo Moreira, Aguiar Thaiane Rodrigues, Paes Leme Adriana Franco, Oliveira Marcelo Tavares de, Souza Evelise Machado de, Cavalli Vanessa, Giannini Marcelo

出版信息

J Adhes Dent. 2015 Feb;17(1):27-34. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a33343.

Abstract

PURPOSE

This study evaluated the effects of pH cycling on fluoride release and bond strength of two self-etching adhesive systems to both enamel and dentin. The ultramorphology of the interfaces produced by the adhesive systems were also analyzed.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The buccal surfaces of bovine incisors were flattened to expose enamel and dentin, which were bonded with either Clearfil Protect Bond (CPB) or One-Up Bond F Plus (OBP). The bonded samples were prepared for microtensile bond strength (μTBS) testing, fluoride ion release, and transmission electron microscopy. pH cycling comprised demineralization (8 h/day) and remineralization (16 h/day) cycles for 8 days. The μTBS data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA, while fluoride release was analyzed using the Friedman and Wilcoxon tests.

RESULTS

The adhesives presented similar bond strengths to enamel. However, the dentin bond strength of CPB was higher than that of OBP. pH cycling did not influence enamel or dentin μTBS. The amount of fluoride released from the bonded enamel and dentin was low and varied among the groups. The morphological evaluation showed that the thickness of the dentin hybrid layers was similar for both adhesives.

CONCLUSION

The pH-cycling regime did not affect enamel or dentin bond strengths. In enamel, both the self-etching adhesives tested presented similar bond strengths, but in dentin, Clearfil Protect Bond showed higher dentin bonding than One-Up Bond F Plus.

摘要

目的

本研究评估了pH循环对两种自酸蚀粘结系统与釉质和牙本质之间氟释放及粘结强度的影响。同时还分析了粘结系统产生的界面的超微形态。

材料与方法

将牛切牙的颊面磨平以暴露釉质和牙本质,分别用Clearfil Protect Bond(CPB)或One-Up Bond F Plus(OBP)进行粘结。对粘结后的样本进行微拉伸粘结强度(μTBS)测试、氟离子释放测试以及透射电子显微镜观察。pH循环包括每天8小时的脱矿化和每天16小时的再矿化循环,持续8天。μTBS数据采用双向方差分析进行分析,氟释放则使用Friedman检验和Wilcoxon检验进行分析。

结果

两种粘结剂对釉质的粘结强度相似。然而,CPB对牙本质的粘结强度高于OBP。pH循环未影响釉质或牙本质的μTBS。粘结后的釉质和牙本质释放的氟量较低,且各实验组之间存在差异。形态学评估显示,两种粘结剂的牙本质混合层厚度相似。

结论

pH循环模式未影响釉质或牙本质的粘结强度。在釉质中,所测试的两种自酸蚀粘结剂的粘结强度相似,但在牙本质中,Clearfil Protect Bond显示出比One-Up Bond F Plus更高的牙本质粘结强度。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验