黏结剂对牙色修复材料与牙本质间黏结强度的影响：一项研究。

Division of Oral Medicine and Dentistry, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital; Department of Oral Medicine, Infection, and Immunity, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.

Department of Epidemiology, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, United States of America.

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Mar 19;25(3):245-249. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3662.

AIM

The aim of the study is to determine the difference in the shear bond strengths to dentin among dental composite (Filtek Z350®, 3M), compomer (Dyract Flow®, Dentsply) and Giomer (Beautifil®, Shofu) with 3M Single Bond Universal Adhesive (SBU) (7th generation, self-etch, single solution adhesive) and Adper Single Bond 2 Adhesive (ASB) (5th generation, total-etch, two solution adhesive).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty extracted human permanent teeth were collected, cleansed of debris, and placed in distilled water. The samples were segregated into two groups depicting the two bonding agents-Adper (ASB) and 3M Single Bond Universal (SBU) and sub-grouped into three groups depicting the three restorative materials (Composite, Giomer, and Compomer) used. Groups were respresented as follows: Group I-ASB + Composite; Group II-ASB + Giomer; Group III-ASB + Compomer; Group IV-SBU + Giomer; Group V-SBU + Compomer; Group VI-SBU + Composite. After applying the bonding agent as per the manufacturer's instructions, following which the restorative material was placed. A Universal Testing Machine (Instron 3366, UK) was employed to estimate the shear bond strength of the individual restorative material and shear bond strengths were calculated.

RESULTS

Composite bonded with SBU (group VI) displayed the greatest shear strength (11.16 ± 4.22 MPa). Moreover, Giomers and flowable compomers displayed better bond strengths with ASB compared with their SBU-bonded counterparts.

CONCLUSION

These results mark the importance of careful material selection in clinical practice and the bonding agent used to achieve optimal bond strength and enhance the clinical longevity and durability of dental restorations.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

From a clinical perspective, to avoid a compressive or a shear failure, it would be preferrable to use a direct composite restorative material with SBU (Single bond universal adhesive, 7th generation) to achieve maximum bond strength. How to cite this article: Kuchibhotla N, Sathyamoorthy H, Balakrishnan S, . Effect of Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials to Dentin: An Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(3):245-249.

目的

本研究旨在比较 3M 单组分通用粘结剂（SBU）（第七代，自酸蚀，单液型粘结剂）和 Adper 单组分 2 粘结剂（ASB）（第五代，全酸蚀，双液型粘结剂）与牙体复合树脂（Filtek Z350®，3M）、复合体（Dyract Flow®，Dentsply）和聚酸改性复合树脂（Beautifil®，Shofu）对牙本质粘结强度的差异。

材料和方法

收集 60 颗人离体恒牙，清除碎屑后置于蒸馏水中。样本分为两组，分别代表两种粘结剂-Adper（ASB）和 3M 单组分通用粘结剂（SBU），并进一步分为三组，分别代表三种修复材料（复合树脂、聚酸改性复合树脂和复合体）。分组如下：组 I-ASB+复合树脂；组 II-ASB+聚酸改性复合树脂；组 III-ASB+复合体；组 IV-SBU+聚酸改性复合树脂；组 V-SBU+复合体；组 VI-SBU+复合树脂。按照说明书要求涂布粘结剂后，将修复材料置于牙体表面。采用万能试验机（Instron 3366，英国）测量各修复材料的剪切粘结强度，计算剪切粘结强度。

结果

用 SBU（组 VI）粘结的复合树脂显示出最大的剪切强度（11.16±4.22 MPa）。此外，与 SBU 粘结剂相比，ASB 更有利于 Giomer 和流动型复合体的粘结。

结论

这些结果表明，在临床实践中，仔细选择材料和粘结剂对于获得最佳粘结强度，提高牙体修复的临床寿命和耐久性非常重要。

临床意义

从临床角度来看，为了避免压缩或剪切失效，最好使用 SBU（单组分通用粘结剂，第七代）粘结的直接复合树脂修复材料，以获得最大的粘结强度。

如何引用本文

Kuchibhotla N, Sathyamoorthy H, Balakrishnan S,. Effect of Bonding Agents on the Shear Bond Strength of Tooth-colored Restorative Materials to Dentin: An Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(3):245-249.