Department of Endodontics, Keesler Air Force Base, Biloxi, Mississippi.
Department of Endodontics, University of Texas School of Dentistry, Houston, Texas.
J Endod. 2019 Nov;45(11):1378-1383. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.07.008. Epub 2019 Sep 3.
Bioceramic materials have shown biologic and physical properties favorable for regenerative treatment. A key to treatment success is an adequate restoration to prevent microleakage; however, research is limited regarding the bond strength between restorative and bioceramic materials used in regenerative procedures. This study compared the bond strength between 4 bioceramic materials and a dual-cure composite resin.
Eighty wells in Teflon (ePlastics, San Diego, CA) blocks were filled with bioceramic materials representing 4 groups: White ProRoot mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), Biodentine (Septodont, Saint Maur des Fosses, France), EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty (Brasseler USA, Savannah, GA), and NeoMTA (Avalon Biomed Inc, Houston, TX). After allowing samples to set according to the manufacturers' instructions, exposed surfaces of the bioceramic materials were prepared using ClearFil SE Bond (Kuraray America, Inc., New York, NY) followed by restoration with ClearFil DC Core Plus (Kuraray America, Inc.). To test shear bond strength, each block was secured in a universal testing machine, and the crosshead was advanced at 0.5 mm/min until fracture. Newton peak force was recorded and megapascals calculated followed by data comparison.
The mean shear bond strengths between ClearFil DC Core Plus and the bioceramic materials were as follows: White ProRoot MTA, 7.96 MPa; Biodentine, 9.18 MPa; EndoSequence Root Repair Material Fast Set Putty, 4.47 MPa; and NeoMTA, 5.72 MPa. White ProRoot MTA and Biodentine were statistically similar, with a higher stress bond strength than NeoMTA, which had a statistically greater bond strength than EndoSequence Root Repair Material. All these values were lower than typical bond strengths shown for dentin-composite resin bonding.
The choice of which bioceramic material to use in regenerative procedures should be based on factors other than the bond between that material and the overlying coronal resin restoration.
生物陶瓷材料具有有利于再生治疗的生物学和物理特性。治疗成功的关键是进行充分的修复以防止微渗漏;然而，关于再生治疗中使用的修复材料和生物陶瓷材料之间的粘结强度的研究有限。本研究比较了 4 种生物陶瓷材料与双固化复合树脂之间的粘结强度。
在特氟龙（ePlastics，圣地亚哥，加利福尼亚州）块中的 80 个孔中填充了代表 4 组的生物陶瓷材料：白色 ProRoot 矿化三氧化物聚合体（MTA）（登士柏 Tulsa Dental，塔尔萨，俄克拉荷马州），Biodentine（赛普敦，圣莫里斯德福斯，法国），EndoSequence 根修复材料快速设置腻子（布拉塞尔美国，萨凡纳，佐治亚州）和 NeoMTA（Avalon Biomed Inc，休斯顿，德克萨斯州）。根据制造商的说明允许样品凝固后，使用 ClearFil SE Bond（可乐丽美国公司，纽约，纽约）对生物陶瓷材料的暴露表面进行预处理，然后用 ClearFil DC Core Plus（可乐丽美国公司）进行修复。为了测试剪切粘结强度，将每个块固定在万能试验机中，并将十字头以 0.5mm/min 的速度推进，直到断裂。记录牛顿峰值力并计算兆帕斯卡，然后进行数据比较。
ClearFil DC Core Plus 与生物陶瓷材料之间的平均剪切粘结强度如下：白色 ProRoot MTA，7.96MPa；Biodentine，9.18MPa；EndoSequence 根修复材料快速设置腻子，4.47MPa；和 NeoMTA，5.72MPa。白色 ProRoot MTA 和 Biodentine 统计学上相似，其粘结强度高于 NeoMTA，而 NeoMTA 的粘结强度明显高于 EndoSequence 根修复材料。所有这些值都低于牙本质-复合树脂粘结的典型粘结强度。
在再生治疗中选择使用哪种生物陶瓷材料不应基于该材料与覆盖的牙冠树脂修复体之间的粘结强度，而应基于其他因素。
