Linden J J, Swift E J
Department of Operative Dentistry, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
Am J Dent. 1994 Feb;7(1):31-4.
This in vitro study evaluated the microleakage of Class V resin composite restorations bonded with All-Bond 2 Universal Dental Adhesive and Scotchbond Multi-Purpose Dental Adhesive System. For comparison, other restorations were placed with Scotchbond 2 Light Cure Dental Adhesive or with no bonding agent. Class V cavities were restored with either one or two increments of resin composite to determine whether the restorative method affected microleakage. A silver nitrate staining technique was used to detect marginal leakage. There was no leakage at the etched enamel margins in any treatment group. All-Bond 2 had significantly less leakage at the gingival margins than the other two dentin adhesives. Scotchbond Multi-Purpose had less leakage than Scotchbond 2, which was not statistically different from the control (no bonding agent). Incremental filling significantly reduced leakage only in the control group.
这项体外研究评估了使用全粘结2通用牙科粘结剂和3M多功能牙科粘结系统粘结的V类树脂复合材料修复体的微渗漏情况。为作比较，其他修复体使用3M Scotchbond 2光固化牙科粘结剂或不使用粘结剂。用一层或两层树脂复合材料修复V类洞，以确定修复方法是否会影响微渗漏。采用硝酸银染色技术检测边缘渗漏情况。在任何治疗组的酸蚀釉质边缘均未发现渗漏。全粘结2在牙龈边缘的渗漏明显少于其他两种牙本质粘结剂。3M多功能粘结剂的渗漏少于3M Scotchbond 2，后者与对照组（不使用粘结剂）在统计学上无差异。分层充填仅在对照组中显著减少了渗漏。
