Castro-Ramirez Leonor Cristina, Ladera-Castañeda Marysela Irene, Cachay-Criado Hernán Rafael, Alvino-Vales María Isabel, López-Gurreonero Carlos, Cervantes-Ganoza Luis Adolfo, Cayo-Rojas César Félix
Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista, School of Stomatology, Lima, Peru 15066.
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal, Postgraduate School, "Grupo de Investigación Salud y Bienestar Global", Lima, Peru 15084.
J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2023 Nov 7;14(1):43-51. doi: 10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_299_21. eCollection 2024 Jan-Feb.
Long-term clinical success on indirect restorations is largely determined by bonding efficiency of the luting agent, with adhesion to dentin being the main challenge. Therefore, aim of this study was to assess the microtensile bond strength when using flowable resin composite, preheated resin composite and dual self-adhesive resin cement as dentin luting agents.
Occlusal thirds of molar teeth were cut and randomly divided into 3 groups to be cemented: RelyX™U200, Filtek™ Z250 XT- preheated to 70° and Filtek Flow™ Z350XT. They were then thermocycled 5000 times between 5+/-2°C and 55+/-2°C. Subsequently, 10 microbars per group were prepared. The 30 samples were placed in saline solution for 24 hours at room temperature prior to microtensile test. This was performed with a digital universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The bond strength values obtained were analyzed in Megapascals (MPa). Measures of central tendency such mean and measures of dispersion such standard deviation were used. In addition, the Kruskall Wallis non-parametric test with Bonferroni post hoc test was applied, considering a significance value of 5% ( < 0.05), with type I error.
The dentin microtensile bond strengths of preheated resin composite, flowable resin composite and dual self-adhesive cement were 6.08 ± 0.66 Mpa, 5.25 ± 2.60Mpa and 2.82 ± 1.26Mpa, respectively. In addition, the preheated resin composite exhibited significantly higher microtensile bond strength compared to the dual self-adhesive cement ( < 0.001). While the flowable resin composite showed no significant difference with the dual self-adhesive cement ( = 0.054) and the preheated resin composite ( = 0.329).
The microtensile bond strength in dentin was significantly higher when using a preheated resin composite at 70°C as a luting agent compared to dual self-adhesive cement. However, the preheated resin composite showed similar microtensile bond strength compared to the flowable resin composite.
间接修复体的长期临床成功很大程度上取决于黏固剂的黏结效率，其中与牙本质的黏附是主要挑战。因此，本研究的目的是评估使用可流动树脂复合材料、预热树脂复合材料和双组分自黏结树脂水门汀作为牙本质黏固剂时的微拉伸黏结强度。
将磨牙的咬合面三分之一处切割下来，并随机分为3组进行黏固：RelyX™ U200、预热至70°的Filtek™ Z250 XT和Filtek Flow™ Z350XT。然后在5±2°C和55±2°C之间进行5000次热循环。随后，每组制备10个微条。在进行微拉伸试验之前，将这30个样本在室温下的盐溶液中放置24小时。使用数字万能试验机以0.5毫米/分钟的十字头速度进行此试验。获得的黏结强度值以兆帕（MPa）为单位进行分析。使用了集中趋势度量（如均值）和离散度度量（如标准差）。此外，应用了带有Bonferroni事后检验的Kruskall Wallis非参数检验，考虑显著性值为5%（<0.05），存在I型错误。
预热树脂复合材料、可流动树脂复合材料和双组分自黏结水门汀的牙本质微拉伸黏结强度分别为6.08±0.66兆帕、5.25±2.60兆帕和2.82±1.26兆帕。此外，与双组分自黏结水门汀相比，预热树脂复合材料表现出显著更高的微拉伸黏结强度（<0.001）。而可流动树脂复合材料与双组分自黏结水门汀（=0.054）和预热树脂复合材料（=0.329）相比无显著差异。
与双组分自黏结水门汀相比，使用70°C的预热树脂复合材料作为黏固剂时，牙本质中的微拉伸黏结强度显著更高。然而，预热树脂复合材料与可流动树脂复合材料相比，微拉伸黏结强度相似。
