Department of Restorative Dentistry, Graduate Program in Dentistry, Meridional Faculty, IMED, 99070-220 Passo Fundo, Brazil.
Biomed Res Int. 2018 Jul 24;2018:3039251. doi: 10.1155/2018/3039251. eCollection 2018.
This study evaluated adhesive protocols (silane, silane and unfilled resin, and universal adhesive) of bond strength between feldspar ceramic and resin-based luting agents (RBLAs). Thirty ceramic disks were embedded into acrylic resin, polished, etched, and randomly divided into 6 groups: S-RC: silane (S) and light-cured resin cement (RC) (RelyX Veneer; 3M ESPE); SB-RC: S followed by bond (B) (Clearfil SE Bond, Kuraray) and RC; UA-RC: universal adhesive (UA) (Single Bond Universal; 3M ESPE) and RC; flowable composite resin (F) was used on groups S-F, SB-F, and UA-F, and luting agent cylinders were built. The response variables (n=20) were microshear bond strength (MPa), characteristic strength ( , MPa), and Weibull modulus (). The RC groups presented similar bond strengths regardless of whether or not bond was used. The S-F group with only silane application showed the highest bond strength, while the universal adhesive showed the lowest bond strength. The reliability was only affected in the UA-RC group, which was lower than the S-F group. Silane application is fundamental since the universal adhesive only decreased the bond strength between the feldspar ceramic and the RBLAs. Overall, the use of unfilled resin did not positively influence bond strength.
本研究评估了长石陶瓷与树脂基水门汀(RBLAs)之间的粘合强度的粘合协议(硅烷、硅烷和未填充树脂以及通用粘合剂)。将 30 个陶瓷圆盘嵌入丙烯酸树脂中,进行抛光、蚀刻,并随机分为 6 组:S-RC:硅烷(S)和光固化树脂水泥(RC)(RelyX Veneer;3M ESPE);SB-RC:S 随后是粘合剂(B)(Clearfil SE Bond,Kuraray)和 RC;UA-RC:通用粘合剂(UA)(Single Bond Universal;3M ESPE)和 RC;在 S-F、SB-F 和 UA-F 组中使用了流动复合树脂(F),并构建了水门汀圆柱体。响应变量(n=20)为微剪切粘合强度(MPa)、特征强度(MPa)和威布尔模量()。RC 组无论是否使用粘合剂,其粘合强度都相似。仅应用硅烷的 S-F 组显示出最高的粘合强度,而通用粘合剂显示出最低的粘合强度。仅在 UA-RC 组中可靠性受到影响,低于 S-F 组。硅烷的应用是基础的,因为通用粘合剂仅降低了长石陶瓷与 RBLAs 之间的粘合强度。总体而言,未填充树脂的使用并没有对粘合强度产生积极影响。