Mohammadi Narmin, Shakur Shahabi Maryam, Kimyai Soodabeh, Pournagi Azar Fatemeh, Ebrahimi Chaharom Mohammad Esmaeel
Associate Professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
Postgraduate Student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Tabriz University of Medical Sciences, Tabriz, Iran.
J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2015 Summer;9(3):181-7. doi: 10.15171/joddd.2015.033. Epub 2015 Sep 16.
Background and aims. Use of porcelain as inlays, laminates and metal-ceramic and all-ceramic crowns is common in modern dentistry. The high cost of ceramic restorations, time limitations and difficulty of removing these restorations result in delays in replacing fractured restorations; therefore, their repair is indicated. The aim of the present study was to compare the shear bond strengths of two types of composite resins (methacrylate-based and silorane-based) to porcelain, using three adhesive types. Materials and methods. A total of 156 samples of feldspathic porcelain surfaces were prepared with air-abrasion and randomly divided into 6 groups (n=26). In groups 1-3, Z250 composite resin was used to repair porcelain samples with Ad-per Single Bond 2 (ASB), Clearfil SE Bond (CSB) and Silorane Adhesive (SA) as the bonding systems, afterapplication of silane, respectively. In groups 4-6, the same adhesives were used in the same manner with Filtek Silorane composite resin. Finally, the shear bond strengths of the samples were measured. Two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests were used to compare bond strengths between the groups with different adhesives at P<0.05. Results. There were significant differences in the mean bond strength values in terms of the adhesive type (P<0.001). In addition, the interactive effect of the adhesive type and composite resin type had no significant effect on bond strength (P=0.602). Conclusion. The results of the present study showed the highest repair bond strength values to porcelain with both composite resin types with the application of SA and ASB.
背景与目的。在现代牙科中,使用瓷制作嵌体、贴面以及金属烤瓷和全瓷冠很常见。陶瓷修复体成本高、时间有限且难以去除,这导致在更换破损修复体时出现延迟;因此,需要对其进行修复。本研究的目的是比较两种复合树脂(甲基丙烯酸酯基和硅氧烷基)与瓷之间的剪切粘结强度,使用三种粘结剂类型。材料与方法。总共制备了156个经空气磨蚀处理的长石质瓷表面样本,并随机分为6组(每组n = 26)。在第1 - 3组中,分别在应用硅烷后,使用Z250复合树脂,以Ad - per Single Bond 2(ASB)、Clearfil SE Bond(CSB)和硅氧烷粘结剂(SA)作为粘结系统来修复瓷样本。在第4 - 6组中,以相同方式使用相同的粘结剂与Filtek Silorane复合树脂。最后,测量样本的剪切粘结强度。采用双向方差分析和事后Tukey检验,以P < 0.05为标准比较不同粘结剂组之间的粘结强度。结果。在粘结剂类型方面,平均粘结强度值存在显著差异(P < 0.001)。此外,粘结剂类型和复合树脂类型的交互作用对粘结强度没有显著影响(P = 0.602)。结论。本研究结果表明,在使用SA和ASB时,两种复合树脂类型与瓷之间的修复粘结强度值最高。