Suppr超能文献

修复方案对与复合树脂粘结强度的影响。

Impact of repair protocols on the bond strength to composite resin.

作者信息

Vilela Ana Laura Rezende, Soares Amanda das Graças, Machado Alexandre Coelho, Borges Marcela Gonçalves, Raposo Luís Henrique Araújo, Menezes Murilo de Sousa

机构信息

Department of Operative Dentistry and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Uberlândia, Uberlândia, MG, Brazil.

Department of Occlusion, Fixed Prosthodontics and Dental Materials, Federal University of Uberlândia, Av. Pará, 1720, Bloco 4L, Sala 4LA42, Campus Umuarama, Uberlândia, MG, CEP 38400-902, Brazil.

出版信息

Odontology. 2025 Apr;113(2):685-692. doi: 10.1007/s10266-024-01003-2. Epub 2024 Sep 14.

Abstract

This study evaluated the impact of different repair protocols on a composite resin substrate using distinct bonding agents submitted or not to artificial aging. Unopened sets of a single-step universal adhesive system (UA) and silane-coupling agents, a single-step pre-hydrolyzed (PH) or a two-step immediately hydrolyzed (IH), were used. Half of the sets were subjected to artificial aging being stored at 48 °C for 30 days, while the other half remained unaged. The composite resin substrates were prepared and aged in distilled water, sandblasted (AlO), and cleaned. Then the different repair protocols were applied according to the groups. UA was used without a previous silane layer, while PH and IH were applied followed by a single-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system. Adhesive systems were light-activated, and four composite resin cylinders were formed over the substrate. After 24 h, the specimens were subjected to microshear bond strength (μSBS) test and failure mode analysis. The μSBS data were subjected to two-way ANOVA followed by Tukey HSD; Kruskal-Wallis analysis was used for failure mode distribution (α = 0.05). After aging the products, UA showed higher bond strength, while PH had significantly lower results, and IH showed no significant differences (p = 0.157). No significant differences were found for bond strength among the repair protocols when using non-aged products (p > 0.05). The protocols using UA and IH showed no significant differences between aged and non-aged bottles, whereas PH exhibited lower bond strength when comparing aged and non-aged products. More cohesive failures were observed in the resin substrate for the IH group without aging.

摘要

本研究评估了使用不同的粘结剂并经过或未经过人工老化处理的不同修复方案对复合树脂基底的影响。使用了未开封的单步通用粘结系统(UA)和硅烷偶联剂、单步预水解(PH)或两步即时水解(IH)产品。其中一半产品组进行人工老化,在48°C下储存30天,另一半保持未老化状态。制备复合树脂基底并在蒸馏水中老化、喷砂处理(AlO)并清洁。然后根据分组应用不同的修复方案。UA使用时不预先涂覆硅烷层,而PH和IH使用后再涂覆单步酸蚀冲洗粘结系统。粘结系统经光固化,在基底上形成四个复合树脂圆柱体。24小时后,对试样进行微剪切粘结强度(μSBS)测试和失效模式分析。μSBS数据采用双向方差分析,随后进行Tukey HSD检验;Kruskal-Wallis分析用于失效模式分布(α = 0.05)。产品老化后,UA显示出较高的粘结强度,而PH的结果显著较低,IH无显著差异(p = 0.157)。使用未老化产品时,修复方案之间的粘结强度无显著差异(p > 0.05)。使用UA和IH的方案在老化和未老化产品之间无显著差异,而PH在比较老化和未老化产品时显示出较低的粘结强度。在未老化的IH组树脂基底中观察到更多的内聚破坏。

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