Gonçalves Thais Marques Simek Vega, Teixeira Karla Nunes, de Oliveira Julia Meller Dias, Gama Lorena Tavares, Bortolini Sergio, Philippi Analucia Gebler
Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Brazil.
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Am J Dent. 2018 Aug;31(4):199-204.
To evaluate the in vitro effects of the Composite Primer and different surface treatments on the shear bond strength (SBS) of acrylic and bis-acryl repairs with resin composite (RC).
Acrylic (Alike) and bis-acryl (Protemp 4) blocks were prepared. Surface roughness was standardized (0.16 µm) and grit blasting was applied to half of the samples. Blocks were divided randomly into groups according to surface treatment [methyl methacrylate monomer (MMA) for 180 seconds or bonding agents (Composite Primer and Scotchbond Multi Purpose), applied alone or following MMA]. Two consistencies of RC [ regular (Filtek Z350XT and Solare composite) or flowable (Filtek Z350XT flowable and G-aenial flowable composite) ] were used to test bond repair. Cylinders (2 mm diameter) of each RC (n= 10/group) were attached to the block surface, and SBS was measured using a universal testing machine at 0.5 mm/minute. Failure (adhesive, cohesive or mixed) was assessed under ×3.5 magnification. SBS data were analyzed using factorial ANOVA, followed by Tukey post-hoc, and Weibull moduli estimation (α = 0.05).
The highest SBS, Weibull modulus (m) and scale parameter (σ0) were found in combined use of MMA and bonding agents (P< 0.001), regardless of the substrate, RC consistency or brand. The use of the Composite Primer and flowable RC also increased SBS (P< 0.001). Significant interaction between surface treatment and RC consistency was observed for the PMMA substrate (P< 0.001). Sandblasting did not influence SBS (P> 0.05). Adhesive failure was most prevalent (93.5%) and SBS values were significantly higher in mixed fractures (19.2± 3.8 MPa) compared to the adhesive ones (9.7± 6.0 MPa) (P< 0.001). No cohesive fracture was observed.
Composite Primer improved the adhesion of acrylic and bis-acryl repairs, especially when a flowable composite was used. When such product is not available, the combined use of MMA and a bonding agent is necessary, increasing the number of clinical steps, cost, and time required.
评估复合底漆和不同表面处理对丙烯酸树脂和双丙烯酸树脂与树脂复合材料（RC）修复体剪切粘结强度（SBS）的体外影响。
制备丙烯酸树脂（Alike）和双丙烯酸树脂（Protemp 4）块体。将表面粗糙度标准化（0.16 µm），并对一半样品进行喷砂处理。根据表面处理方式[甲基丙烯酸甲酯单体（MMA）处理180秒或粘结剂（复合底漆和Scotchbond多功能粘结剂），单独使用或在MMA处理后使用]将块体随机分组。使用两种稠度的RC[常规型（Filtek Z350XT和Solare复合材料）或流动型（Filtek Z350XT流动型和G-aenial流动型复合材料）]测试粘结修复效果。将每个RC的圆柱体（直径2 mm，每组n = 10）附着在块体表面，使用万能试验机以0.5 mm/分钟的速度测量SBS。在3.5倍放大倍数下评估失败类型（粘结性、内聚性或混合型）。使用析因方差分析对SBS数据进行分析，随后进行Tukey事后检验和威布尔模量估计（α = 0.05）。
无论基底、RC稠度或品牌如何，在MMA和粘结剂联合使用时发现最高的SBS、威布尔模量（m）和尺度参数（σ0）（P < 0.001）。复合底漆和流动型RC的使用也增加了SBS（P < 0.001）。对于聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）基底，观察到表面处理和RC稠度之间存在显著交互作用（P < 0.001）。喷砂处理不影响SBS（P > 0.05）。粘结性失败最为常见（93.5%），与粘结性失败（9.7±6.0 MPa）相比，混合型断裂中的SBS值显著更高（19.2±3.8 MPa）（P < 0.001）。未观察到内聚性断裂。
复合底漆改善了丙烯酸树脂和双丙烯酸树脂修复体的粘结，尤其是在使用流动型复合材料时。当没有此类产品时，有必要联合使用MMA和粘结剂，这会增加临床步骤数量、成本和所需时间。
