Fuentes María-Victoria, Escribano Nuria, Baracco Bruno, Romero Martin, Ceballos Laura
Assistant Professor, Department of Stomatology and Nursing, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain.
Associate Professor, Department of Stomatology and Nursing, Health Sciences Faculty, Rey Juan Carlos University, Alcorcón, Spain.
J Clin Exp Dent. 2016 Feb 1;8(1):e14-21. doi: 10.4317/jced.52754. eCollection 2016 Feb.
No specific indications about the pre-treatment of indirect composite restorations is provided by the manufacturers of most self-adhesive resin cements. The potential effect of silane treatment to the bond strength of the complete tooth/indirect restoration complex is not available.The aim of this study was to determine the contribution of different surface treatments on microtensile bond strength of composite overlays to dentin using several self-adhesive resin cements and a total-etch one.
Composite overlays were fabricated and bonding surfaces were airborne-particle abraded and randomly assigned to two different surface treatments: no treatment or silane application (RelyX Ceramic Primer) followed by an adhesive (Adper Scotchbond 1 XT). Composite overlays were luted to flat dentin surfaces using the following self-adhesive resin cements: RelyX Unicem, G-Cem, Speedcem, Maxcem Elite or Smartcem2, and the total-etch resin cement RelyX ARC. After 24 h, bonded specimens were cut into sticks 1 mm thick and stressed in tension until failure. Two-way ANOVA and SNK tests were applied at α=0.05.
Bond strength values were significantly influenced by the resin cement used (p<0.001). However, composite surface treatment and the interaction between the resin cement applied and surface treatment did not significantly affect dentin bond strength (p>0.05). All self-adhesive resin cements showed lower bond strength values than the total-etch RelyX ARC. Among self-adhesive resin cements, RelyX Unicem and G-Cem attained statistically higher bond strength values. Smartcem2 and Maxcem Elite exhibited 80-90% of pre-test failures.
The silane and adhesive application after indirect resin composite sandblasting did not improve the bond strength of dentin-composite overlay complex. Selection of the resin cement seems to be a more relevant factor when bonding indirect composites to dentin than its surface treatment.
Bond strength, self-adhesive cement, silane, dentin, indirect composite.
大多数自粘树脂水门汀制造商未提供关于间接复合树脂修复体预处理的具体指征。硅烷处理对完整牙齿/间接修复复合体粘结强度的潜在影响尚不可知。本研究的目的是使用几种自粘树脂水门汀和一种全酸蚀树脂水门汀，确定不同表面处理对复合树脂覆盖层与牙本质微拉伸粘结强度的影响。
制作复合树脂覆盖层，对粘结面进行空气颗粒喷砂处理，并随机分为两种不同的表面处理：不处理或应用硅烷（RelyX Ceramic Primer），随后应用粘结剂（Adper Scotchbond 1 XT）。使用以下自粘树脂水门汀将复合树脂覆盖层粘结到平坦的牙本质表面：RelyX Unicem、G-Cem、Speedcem、Maxcem Elite或Smartcem2，以及全酸蚀树脂水门汀RelyX ARC。24小时后，将粘结标本切成1毫米厚的小条，并进行拉伸应力直至破坏。采用α=0.05的双向方差分析和SNK检验。
粘结强度值受所用树脂水门汀的显著影响（p<0.001）。然而，复合树脂表面处理以及所应用的树脂水门汀与表面处理之间的相互作用对牙本质粘结强度没有显著影响（p>0.05）。所有自粘树脂水门汀的粘结强度值均低于全酸蚀的RelyX ARC。在自粘树脂水门汀中，RelyX Unicem和G-Cem获得了统计学上更高的粘结强度值。Smartcem2和Maxcem Elite在测试前出现了80-90%的失败情况。
间接树脂复合材料喷砂后应用硅烷和粘结剂并未提高牙本质-复合树脂覆盖复合体的粘结强度。将间接复合材料粘结到牙本质时，选择树脂水门汀似乎比其表面处理更重要。
粘结强度；自粘水门汀；硅烷；牙本质；间接复合材料
