Almeida Ayres Ana Paula, Tabchoury Cínthia Pereira Machado, Bittencourt Berger Sandrine, Yamauti Monica, Bovi Ambrosano Glaucia Maria, Giannini Marcelo
J Adhes Dent. 2015 Aug;17(4):337-45. doi: 10.3290/j.jad.a34555.
This study evaluated (1) the dentin bond strength of fluoridated restorative systems following aging and (2) the enamel/dentin microhardness around restorations after a pH-cycling regimen.
Sixty-four human third molars and four restorative systems were used. A resin-modified glass ionomer (GC Fuji II LC) was used as a fluoride-containing material in the positive control group, while Adper Easy Bond adhesive and Filtek Z350 XT composite resin, which are not fluoridated, were used together in the negative control group. Beautifil II composite resin and FL-Bond II adhesive, both fluoride-containing materials, were compared to Bond Force and Estelite Sigma Quick restorative system, which only contain fluoride in the adhesive. For dentin bond strengths, specimens of each material were fabricated for two test groups (n=8): group 1: tested after 24 h; group 2: tested after 1 year of storage in artificial saliva. Both groups were tested using a microtensile method. For the cross-sectional microhardness test, standardized Class V cavities were prepared and filled with the different restorative systems. After experiencing repeated thermocycling and being subjected to pH-cycling, the teeth were sectioned. The microhardness was measured in enamel and dentin at 50 μm from the cavity wall and at six depths in relation to the surface subjected to pH cycling.
None of the restorative systems showed decreased bond strength after storage for one year in artificial saliva. No significant differences in microhardness were observed among the restorative materials on enamel and dentin.
All the restorative systems evaluated presented stable bond strength after one year of storage. The pH cycling caused a reduction in the superficial enamel microhardness close to the cavity wall. In dentin, the demineralization affected the superficial and sub-surface areas.
本研究评估了（1）老化后含氟修复系统的牙本质粘结强度，以及（2）在pH循环方案后修复体周围的釉质/牙本质显微硬度。
使用了64颗人第三磨牙和四种修复系统。在阳性对照组中，使用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀（GC Fuji II LC）作为含氟材料，而在阴性对照组中，使用未含氟的Adper Easy Bond粘结剂和Filtek Z350 XT复合树脂。将含氟材料的Beautifil II复合树脂和FL-Bond II粘结剂与仅在粘结剂中含氟的Bond Force和Estelite Sigma Quick修复系统进行比较。对于牙本质粘结强度，为两个测试组（n = 8）制备每种材料的样本：第1组：24小时后测试；第2组：在人工唾液中储存1年后测试。两组均使用微拉伸法进行测试。对于横断面显微硬度测试，制备标准化的V类洞并用不同的修复系统进行填充。在经历反复热循环并进行pH循环后，将牙齿切片。在距洞壁50μm处以及相对于进行pH循环的表面的六个深度处测量釉质和牙本质中的显微硬度。
在人工唾液中储存一年后，所有修复系统均未显示粘结强度降低。在修复材料的釉质和牙本质上未观察到显微硬度的显著差异。
所有评估的修复系统在储存一年后均表现出稳定的粘结强度。pH循环导致靠近洞壁的表层釉质显微硬度降低。在牙本质中，脱矿作用影响了表层和次表层区域。
