Oper Dent. 2020 Jan/Feb;45(1):80-91. doi: 10.2341/18-275-L. Epub 2019 Jun 21.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether different enamel etching methods with reduced etching times would improve the bonding effectiveness of universal adhesives.
Three enamel etching methods, phosphoric acid ester monomer (PPM) etching, phosphoric acid (PPA) etching, and polyalkenoic acid (PLA) etching, and three universal adhesives, G-Premio Bond (GP), Prime&Bond elect (PE), and Scotchbond Universal Adhesive (SU), were evaluated. Initial bond strengths and fatigue strengths of universal adhesives to ground enamel and ground enamel etched for less than one, five, 10, and 15 seconds using different etching methods were determined. The bonded fatigue specimens were loaded using a sine wave at a frequency of 20 Hz for 50,000 cycles or until failure occurred with a staircase method. Atomic force micrograph (AFM) observations along with measurements of surface Ra roughness and modified surface area of enamel with different etching protocols were also conducted.
The bond fatigue durability of universal adhesives to enamel with PPA etching from less than one to 15 seconds and PLA etching for 15 seconds was significantly higher than that to ground enamel. The bond fatigue durability to enamel with PPM etching was not increased compared with ground enamel. The surface Ra roughness and surface area obtained with AFM of enamel increased after PPA and PLA etching, and those values were significantly higher than those of ground enamel. Furthermore, surface Ra roughness and surface area with PPA etching were significantly higher than those with PLA etching. However, surface Ra roughness and surface area of enamel with PPM etching were similar to those of ground enamel regardless of etching time.
PPA etching for less than one to 15 seconds and PLA etching for 15 seconds improve universal adhesive bonding, surface Ra roughness, and surface area of enamel. However, PPM etching is not effective, regardless of etching time, in improving bonds strengths, increasing surface roughness, and increasing surface area.
本研究旨在评估不同缩短蚀刻时间的釉质蚀刻方法是否会提高通用粘结剂的粘结效果。
评估了三种釉质蚀刻方法，磷酸酯单体（PPM）蚀刻、磷酸（PPA）蚀刻和聚烯酸（PLA）蚀刻，以及三种通用粘结剂，G-Premio Bond（GP）、Prime&Bond elect（PE）和 Scotchbond Universal Adhesive（SU）。使用不同的蚀刻方法，对釉质进行少于 1 秒、5 秒、10 秒和 15 秒的蚀刻，测试通用粘结剂对釉质的初始粘结强度和疲劳强度。采用正弦波以 20 Hz 的频率对粘结疲劳试件加载 50000 次或直至发生故障，采用阶梯法。还对不同蚀刻方案下的原子力显微镜（AFM）观察以及釉质表面 Ra 粗糙度和改良表面面积进行了测量。
PPA 蚀刻少于 15 秒和 PLA 蚀刻 15 秒的釉质的通用粘结剂的粘结疲劳耐久性明显高于釉质。与釉质相比，PPM 蚀刻的通用粘结剂的粘结疲劳耐久性没有增加。PPA 和 PLA 蚀刻后釉质的表面 Ra 粗糙度和获得的改良表面面积通过 AFM 测量有所增加，这些值明显高于釉质。此外，PPA 蚀刻的表面 Ra 粗糙度和表面面积明显高于 PLA 蚀刻。然而，PPM 蚀刻的釉质的表面 Ra 粗糙度和表面面积无论蚀刻时间如何，都与釉质相似。
PPA 蚀刻少于 15 秒和 PLA 蚀刻 15 秒可改善通用粘结剂的粘结、釉质的表面 Ra 粗糙度和表面面积。然而，PPM 蚀刻无论蚀刻时间如何，都不能有效提高粘结强度、增加表面粗糙度和增加表面面积。
