Birlbauer Sebastian, Chiang Meng-Ling, Schuldt Christoph, Pitchika Vinay, Hickel Reinhard, Ilie Nicoleta, Kühnisch Jan
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Ludwig-Maximilians-University of Munich, Poliklinik für Zahnerhaltung und Parodontologie, Goethestraße 70, 80336, Munich, Germany.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan.
Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1465-1473. doi: 10.1007/s00784-016-1907-z. Epub 2016 Jul 19.
This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of three experimental self-etching primers for pit and fissure sealing.
The material used three formulations of an experimental fissure primer (EFP) applied without phosphoric acid etching (EFP-1/EFP-2/EFP-3) and one control group with sealant application after 30 s of acid etching. Four groups of sealants (n = 40 specimens/group) were tested for SBS, and a failure analysis was conducted after 1-day water storage, 3-month water storage, and 5000-fold thermocycling. In addition, microleakage was tested.
The SBSs of the EFPs (range 8.2 MPa (standard deviation 4.2) to 15.4 MPa (5.4)) were generally significantly lower than those of conventional fissure sealing (range 15.6 MPa (4.4) to 19.1 MPa (6.2)). The SBS of EFP-3 was better than that of the EFP-1 or EFP-2 formulations. Microleakage was significantly lower in the control group (1.1 %) than in the EFP-1 (3.8 %) and lower than in EFP-3 (7.7 %) group. In the (multiple) linear regression analysis, material and aging significantly influenced SBS.
The SBS of EFP-3 was 15 to 32 % lower than it was for the corresponding controls.
The SBS is lower, but the main potential benefit of this new approach is a reduced application time in clinical practice.
本体外研究评估了三种用于窝沟封闭的实验性自酸蚀底漆的剪切粘结强度(SBS)和微渗漏情况。
该材料使用了三种实验性窝沟底漆配方(EFP),无需磷酸酸蚀即可应用(EFP - 1/EFP - 2/EFP - 3),以及一个对照组,在酸蚀30秒后应用封闭剂。对四组封闭剂(每组n = 40个样本)进行了SBS测试,并在储存1天、储存3个月和进行5000次热循环后进行了失效分析。此外,还测试了微渗漏情况。
EFP的SBS(范围为8.2兆帕(标准差4.2)至15.4兆帕(5.4))总体上显著低于传统窝沟封闭的SBS(范围为15.6兆帕(4.4)至19.1兆帕(6.2))。EFP - 3的SBS优于EFP - 1或EFP - 2配方。对照组的微渗漏(1.1%)显著低于EFP - 1组(3.8%),且低于EFP - 3组(7.7%)。在(多元)线性回归分析中,材料和老化对SBS有显著影响。
EFP - 3的SBS比相应对照组低15%至32%。
SBS较低,但这种新方法的主要潜在益处是在临床实践中减少了应用时间。