Kulkarni Girish, Mishra Vinay K
Private Practice, Practitioner Akash Dental Care, NR Colony, Bengaluru, Karnataka, India Phone: +917760998794 e-mail:
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rama Dental College and Hospital, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh, India.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016 May 1;17(5):399-407. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1862.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effect of enamel wetness on microshear bond strength using different adhesive systems.
To evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on dry enamel; to evaluate microshear bond strength of three bonding agents on wet enamel; and to compare microshear bond strength of three different bonding agents on dry and wet enamel.
Sixty extracted noncarious human premolars were selected for this study. Flat enamel surfaces of approximately 3 mm were obtained by grinding the buccal surfaces of premolars with water-cooled diamond disks. This study evaluated one etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Single Bond 2) and two self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V). The specimens were divided into two groups (n = 30). Group I (dry) was air-dried for 30 seconds and in group II (wet) surfaces were blotted with absorbent paper to remove excess water. These groups were further divided into six subgroups (n = 10) according to the adhesives used. The resin composite, Filtek Z 250, was bonded to flat enamel surfaces that had been treated with one of the adhesives, following the manufacturer's instructions. After being stored in water at 37°C for 24 hours, bonded specimens were stressed in universal testing machine (Fig. 3) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The data were evaluated with one-way and two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), t-test, and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests (a = 0.05).
The two-way ANOVA and Tukey's Multiple Post hoc tests showed significant differences among adhesive systems, but wetness did not influence microshear bond strength (p = 0.1762). The one-way ANOVA and t-test showed that the all-in-one adhesive (Xeno-V) was the only material influenced by the presence of water on the enamel surface. Xeno-V showed significantly higher microshear bond strength when the enamel was kept wet. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed significantly higher microshear bond strength as compared with Xeno-V adhesive but no significant difference when compared with Clearfil SE Bond adhesive in dry enamel. Single Bond 2 adhesive showed no significant difference in microshear bond strength as compared with self-etching adhesive systems (Clearfil SE Bond and Xeno-V), when the enamel was kept wet.
From the findings of the results, it was concluded that self-etching adhesives were not negatively affected by the presence of water on the enamel surface.
The all-in-one adhesive showed different behavior depending on whether the enamel surface was dry or wet. So the enamel surface should not be desiccated, when self-etching adhesives are used.
本研究旨在比较使用不同粘结系统时牙釉质湿润度对微剪切粘结强度的影响。
评估三种粘结剂在干燥牙釉质上的微剪切粘结强度；评估三种粘结剂在湿润牙釉质上的微剪切粘结强度；比较三种不同粘结剂在干燥和湿润牙釉质上的微剪切粘结强度。
本研究选取了60颗拔除的无龋人类前磨牙。使用水冷金刚石磨盘打磨前磨牙的颊面，获得约3mm的平整牙釉质表面。本研究评估了一种酸蚀冲洗粘结系统（Single Bond 2）和两种自酸蚀粘结系统（Clearfil SE Bond和Xeno-V）。样本被分为两组（n = 30）。第一组（干燥组）空气干燥30秒，第二组（湿润组）用吸水纸吸干表面多余水分。根据所使用的粘结剂，这些组进一步分为六个亚组（n = 10）。按照制造商的说明，将树脂复合材料Filtek Z 250粘结到用其中一种粘结剂处理过的平整牙釉质表面。在37°C水中储存24小时后，将粘结样本在万能试验机（图3）中以1mm/min的十字头速度施加应力。数据采用单向和双向方差分析（ANOVA）、t检验以及Tukey多重事后检验（α = 0.05）进行评估。
双向方差分析和Tukey多重事后检验显示粘结系统之间存在显著差异，但湿润度并未影响微剪切粘结强度（P = 0.1762）。单向方差分析和t检验表明，一体化粘结剂（Xeno-V）是唯一受牙釉质表面水分影响的材料。当牙釉质保持湿润时，Xeno-V显示出显著更高的微剪切粘结强度。在干燥牙釉质中，Single Bond 2粘结剂显示出显著高于Xeno-V粘结剂的微剪切粘结强度，但与Clearfil SE Bond粘结剂相比无显著差异。当牙釉质保持湿润时，Single Bond 2粘结剂与自酸蚀粘结系统（Clearfil SE Bond和Xeno-V）相比，微剪切粘结强度无显著差异。
根据结果发现，得出结论：自酸蚀粘结剂不受牙釉质表面水分的负面影响。
一体化粘结剂根据牙釉质表面是干燥还是湿润表现出不同的行为。因此，使用自酸蚀粘结剂时，牙釉质表面不应干燥处理。
