Suppr超能文献

树脂与树脂以及树脂与二硅酸锂陶瓷的粘结:方法学评估

Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin-Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment.

作者信息

Guggenbühl Simon, Alshihri Abdulmonem, Al-Haj Husain Nadin, Özcan Mutlu

机构信息

Center for Dental and Oral Medicine, Division of Dental Biomaterials, Clinic for Reconstructive Dentistry, University of Zurich, 8032 Zurich, Switzerland.

Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11451, Saudi Arabia.

出版信息

Materials (Basel). 2021 Jul 11;14(14):3870. doi: 10.3390/ma14143870.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate four test methods on the adhesion of resin composite to resin composite, and resin composite to glass ceramic. Resin composite specimens ( 180, Quadrant Universal LC) were obtained and distributed randomly to test the adhesion of resin composite material and to ceramic materials (IPS e.max CAD) using one of the four following tests: (a) Macroshear SBT: ( 30), (b) macrotensile TBT: ( 30), (c) microshear µSBT: ( 30) and (d) microtensile µTBT test ( 6, composite-composite:216 sticks, ceramic-composite:216 sticks). Bonded specimens were stored for 24 h at 23 °C. Bond strength values were measured using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min), and failure types were analysed after debonding. Data were analysed using Univariate and Tukey's, Bonneferroni post hoc test (α = 0.05). Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m), and shape () were calculated. Test method and substrate type significantly affected the bond strength results, as well as their interaction term ( < 0.05). Resin composite to resin composite adhesion using SBT (24.4 ± 5), TBT (16.1 ± 4.4) and µSBT (20.6 ± 7.4) test methods presented significantly lower mean bond values (MPa), compared to µTBT (36.7 ± 8.9) ( < 0.05). When testing adhesion of glass ceramics to resin composite, µSBT (6.6 ± 1) showed the lowest and µTBT (24.8 ± 7) the highest test values (MPa) (SBT (14.6 ± 5) and TBT (19.9 ± 5)) ( < 0.05). Resin composite adhesion to ceramic vs. resin composite did show significant difference for the test methods SBT and µTBT (resin composite (24.4 ± 5; 36.7 ± 9 MPa) vs. glass ceramic (14.6 ± 5; 25 ± 7 MPa)) ( > 0.05). Among substrate-test combinations, Weibull distribution presented the highest shape values for ceramic-resin in µSBT (7.6) and resin-resin in µSBT (5.7). Cohesive failures in resin-resin bond were most frequently observed in SBT (87%), followed by TBT (50%) and µSBT (50%), while mixed failures occurred mostly in ceramic-resin bonds in the SBT (100%), TBT (90%), and µSBT (90%) test types. According to Weibull modulus, failure types, and bond strength, µTBT tests might be more reliable for testing resin-based composites adhesion to resin, while µSBT might be more suitable for adhesion testing of resin-based composites to ceramic materials.

摘要

本研究的目的是评估四种测试方法对树脂复合材料与树脂复合材料以及树脂复合材料与玻璃陶瓷之间粘结力的影响。制备了树脂复合材料试样(180个,Quadrant Universal LC),并将其随机分组,使用以下四种测试方法之一来测试树脂复合材料与陶瓷材料(IPS e.max CAD)之间的粘结力:(a)宏观剪切SBT:(30个),(b)宏观拉伸TBT:(30个),(c)微观剪切µSBT:(30个),以及(d)微观拉伸µTBT测试(6个,复合材料-复合材料:216根棒,陶瓷-复合材料:216根棒)。粘结后的试样在23°C下储存24小时。使用万能试验机(1毫米/分钟)测量粘结强度值,并在脱粘后分析失效类型。数据采用单因素分析以及Tukey检验、Bonneferroni事后检验(α = 0.05)进行分析。计算了双参数威布尔模量、尺度(m)和形状()。测试方法和基底类型显著影响粘结强度结果,以及它们的交互项(<0.05)。与µTBT(36.7±8.9)相比,使用SBT(24.4±5)、TBT(16.1±4.4)和µSBT(20.6±7.4)测试方法时,树脂复合材料与树脂复合材料之间的粘结平均强度值(MPa)显著较低(<0.05)。在测试玻璃陶瓷与树脂复合材料的粘结力时,µSBT(6.6±1)显示出最低测试值,µTBT(24.8±7)显示出最高测试值(MPa)(SBT(14.6±5)和TBT(19.9±5))(<0.05)。对于SBT和µTBT测试方法,树脂复合材料与陶瓷之间的粘结力与树脂复合材料与树脂之间的粘结力确实存在显著差异(树脂复合材料(24.4±5;36.7±9 MPa)与玻璃陶瓷(14.6±5;25±7 MPa))(>0.05)。在基底-测试组合中,威布尔分布在µSBT测试的陶瓷-树脂(7.6)和µSBT测试的树脂-树脂(5.7)中呈现出最高的形状值。在树脂-树脂粘结中,内聚破坏在SBT中最常观察到(87%),其次是TBT(50%)和µSBT(50%),而混合破坏主要发生在SBT(100%)、TBT(90%)和µSBT(90%)测试类型的陶瓷-树脂粘结中。根据威布尔模量、失效类型和粘结强度,µTBT测试可能对于测试树脂基复合材料与树脂之间的粘结更可靠,而µSBT可能更适合用于树脂基复合材料与陶瓷材料之间的粘结测试。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验