Michel Wendlinger, DDS, Ms, PhD student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil.
Alejandra Nuñez, DDS, MS, PhD student, Department of Restorative Dentistry, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil, and professor, Department of Restorative Dentistry and Biomaterials, San Francisco de Quito University, Quito, Ecuador.
Oper Dent. 2023 Sep 1;48(5):500-512. doi: 10.2341/22-050-L.
To evaluate the absence of 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA) on the adhesive properties with enamel and dentin of universal adhesive systems containing 10-methacryloyloxydecyl dihydrogen phosphate (MDP).
One hundred and twelve caries-free third molars were used to test adhesion to dentin (n=64) and enamel (n=48). For each substrate, teeth were divided into eight experimental groups: four different adhesives each using two adhesive strategies. The adhesives used were: (1) Scotchbond Universal (SBU, 3M Oral Care, St Paul, MN, USA) as a HEMA-containing universal adhesive; (2) Gluma Bond Universal (GBU, Kulzer, Hanau, Germany); (3) Solare Universal Bond (SUB, GC, Tokyo, Japan); and (4) Zipbond Universal (ZIP, SDI, Victoria, Australia) as HEMA-free universal adhesives. The adhesive strategies used were etch-and-rinse (ER) and self-etch (SE). For dentin tests, the occlusal third of the crown of all teeth was removed and an adhesive protocol was applied. After completing the restoration, specimens were sectioned into bonded sticks (0.8 mm 2) and tested for microtensile bond strength (μTBS), in situ degree of conversion (DC), and nanoleakage (NL) by scanning electron microscopy. For enamel tests, teeth were sectioned into four parts (buccal, lingual, and proximal), and an adhesive protocol was applied. After completing the restoration, the specimens were tested for their microshear bond strength (μSBS). For in situ degree of conversion (DC) and nanoleakage (NL) evaluation of enamel, the specimens were sectioned in slices to be evaluated. The data for each substrate were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05) for each property evaluated.
The SBU and ZIP adhesives showed the highest μSBS, and DC (dentin and enamel) and lower NL (dentin) values compared to GBU and SUB (p=0.001). However, SBU showed better results in terms of μTBS and μSBS (SE strategy), and DC (dentin and enamel) than ZIP. Strategy ER presented higher values of μTBS and μSBS when compared to strategy SE (p=0.001), except for SBU.
The effect of the absence of HEMA in commercial universal adhesive systems on enamel and dentin adhesive properties appears to be material-dependent.
评估含有 10-甲丙烯酰氧基癸基二氢磷酸酯（MDP）的通用粘结剂系统中是否存在 2-羟乙基甲基丙烯酸酯（HEMA）对牙本质和牙釉质粘结性能的影响。
112 颗无龋第三磨牙被用于测试牙本质粘结（n=64）和牙釉质粘结（n=48）。对于每个基底，牙齿被分为 8 个实验组：每个实验组使用两种粘结策略的四种不同粘结剂。使用的粘结剂如下：（1）Scotchbond Universal（SBU，3M Oral Care，St Paul，MN，USA）作为含有 HEMA 的通用粘结剂；（2）Gluma Bond Universal（GBU，Kulzer，Hanau，Germany）；（3）Solare Universal Bond（SUB，GC，Tokyo，Japan）；和（4）Zipbond Universal（ZIP，SDI，Victoria，Australia）作为不含 HEMA 的通用粘结剂。使用的粘结策略为酸蚀-冲洗（ER）和自酸蚀（SE）。对于牙本质测试，所有牙齿的牙冠咬合面的三分之一被去除，并应用粘结剂方案。完成修复后，将标本切割成粘结棒（0.8mm2），并通过扫描电子显微镜测试微拉伸粘结强度（μTBS）、原位转化率（DC）和纳米渗漏（NL）。对于牙釉质测试，牙齿被分为四个部分（颊侧、舌侧和近中侧），并应用粘结剂方案。完成修复后，测试标本的微剪切粘结强度（μSBS）。对于牙釉质的原位转化率（DC）和纳米渗漏（NL）评估，将标本切割成薄片进行评估。对每种基底的数据进行双因素方差分析和 Tukey 检验（α=0.05），以评估每种特性。
与 GBU 和 SUB 相比，SBU 和 ZIP 粘结剂表现出最高的 μSBS 和 DC（牙本质和牙釉质）值，以及较低的 NL（牙本质）值（p=0.001）。然而，SBU 在 μTBS 和 μSBS（SE 策略）以及 DC（牙本质和牙釉质）方面的表现优于 ZIP。与 SE 策略相比，ER 策略的 μTBS 和 μSBS 更高（p=0.001），但 SBU 除外。
商业通用粘结剂系统中是否存在 HEMA 对牙本质和牙釉质粘结性能的影响似乎取决于材料。
