Stape Thiago Henrique Scarabello, Tulkki Oskari, Salim Ikram Aqel, Jamal Kaveh Nik, Mutluay Mustafa Murat, Tezvergil-Mutluay Arzu
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Cariology, Adhesive Dentistry Research Group, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland; Turku University Hospital, TYKS, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Department of Restorative Dentistry and Cariology, Adhesive Dentistry Research Group, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Turku, Finland.
Dent Mater. 2022 Feb;38(2):231-241. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.003. Epub 2022 Jan 11.
To determine whether the composition of universal adhesives and the use of silane coupling agents could affect the fatigue strength of composite repair.
Composite samples were aged in water at 37 °C for 90 days and bonded to fresh composite to produce twin-bonded bar-shaped composite specimens (2 × 2 × 12 mm). Five universal adhesives, a multistep composite repair system and a hydrophobic solvent-free resin associated to a separate silane coupling agent application were used for bonding. Composite samples were tested under 4-pointflexure initially at quasi-static loading (n = 12) followed by cyclic loading (n = 25). The stress-life fatigue behavior was evaluated following the staircase method at 4 Hz. The unfractured side of cyclic loaded beams were evaluated under SEM to determine crack initiation sites. Fatigue data was analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey test and Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test (α = 0.05).
Bonding protocols were unable to restore the cohesive strength of the nanofilled composite (p < 0.05). Fatigue testing was more discriminative to reveal discrepancies in composite repair than conventional quasi-static loading. While the composition of universal adhesives affected composite repair potential, the highest endurance limits occurred for the separate silane coupling agent application. Crack propagation sites were mostly located on the aged composite surface.
Although a trend for simplification invariably overruns current adhesive dentistry, composite repair using solely universal adhesives may result in inferior repair potential. The additonal use of silane coupling agents remains as an important procedure in composite repairs.
确定通用型粘结剂的成分以及硅烷偶联剂的使用是否会影响复合树脂修复体的疲劳强度。
将复合树脂样本在37℃的水中老化90天,然后粘结到新鲜的复合树脂上,制成双粘结的棒状复合树脂标本(2×2×12mm)。使用五种通用型粘结剂、一种多步骤复合树脂修复系统以及一种与单独使用的硅烷偶联剂相关的无疏水溶剂树脂进行粘结。复合树脂样本首先在准静态加载(n = 12)下进行4点弯曲测试,随后进行循环加载(n = 25)。按照阶梯法在4Hz频率下评估应力-寿命疲劳行为。对循环加载梁未断裂的一侧进行扫描电子显微镜(SEM)评估,以确定裂纹起始部位。通过方差分析(ANOVA)、Tukey检验和Wilcoxon秩和检验(α = 0.05)对疲劳数据进行分析。
粘结方案无法恢复纳米填料复合树脂的内聚强度(p < 0.05)。与传统的准静态加载相比,疲劳测试在揭示复合树脂修复差异方面更具区分性。虽然通用型粘结剂的成分会影响复合树脂修复潜力,但单独使用硅烷偶联剂时具有最高的耐力极限。裂纹扩展部位大多位于老化的复合树脂表面。
尽管简化趋势总是超越当前的粘结牙科技术,但仅使用通用型粘结剂进行复合树脂修复可能会导致修复潜力较差。额外使用硅烷偶联剂仍然是复合树脂修复中的一个重要步骤。