Suppr超能文献

两种牙本质粘结剂用于颈部病损的评估。

Evaluation of two dentin adhesives in cervical lesions.

作者信息

Van Meerbeek B, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G

机构信息

School of Dentistry, Catholic University of Leuven, Belgium.

出版信息

J Prosthet Dent. 1993 Oct;70(4):308-14. doi: 10.1016/0022-3913(93)90213-8.

Abstract

The clinical effectiveness of two dentin adhesives, Clearfil New Bond and Scotchbond 2, was evaluated in two different cavity designs. Group A was without enamel bevel or acid etch and with a butt-joint cavity; and group B had enamel bevel, acid etch, and feather-edged cavities. The retentive rate and marginal adaptation were monitored for 2 years. In the Clearfil system, 21% of group A restorations failed after 2 years, whereas virtually all the group B restorations (99%) were retained. In addition, after 2 years, the total of debonded group A restorations in the Scotchbond 2 system expanded to 13%, whereas no restorations from group B were lost. There was clearly marginal deterioration in time irrespective of the bonding system. Nevertheless, the marginal adaptation of cervical lesions restored with Clearfil New Bond adhesive in combination with Clearfil Ray composite resin revealed fewer defects compared with the Scotchbond 2 adhesive with Silux Plus composite resin restorations. SEM evaluation disclosed composite resin remnants on the dentin surface in cavities with lost fillings, which indicates partial cohesive failure of the adhesive joint.

摘要

在两种不同的洞型设计中评估了两种牙本质粘结剂Clearfil New Bond和Scotchbond 2的临床效果。A组无釉质斜面或酸蚀,采用对接洞型;B组有釉质斜面、酸蚀和羽状边缘洞型。对固位率和边缘适应性进行了2年的监测。在Clearfil系统中,2年后A组修复体的失败率为21%,而B组几乎所有修复体(99%)都得以保留。此外,2年后,Scotchbond 2系统中A组脱粘修复体的总数增加到13%,而B组没有修复体脱落。无论粘结系统如何,边缘情况都会随时间明显恶化。然而,与使用Scotchbond 2粘结剂和Silux Plus复合树脂修复体相比,使用Clearfil New Bond粘结剂与Clearfil Ray复合树脂联合修复颈部病变时,边缘适应性缺陷更少。扫描电子显微镜评估显示,在充填物脱落的窝洞中,牙本质表面有复合树脂残留,这表明粘结接头存在部分内聚破坏。

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