Jumlongras D, White G E
Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Tufts University School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02111, USA.
J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1997 Spring;21(3):223-9.
Previous clinical and in vitro studies have shown a higher failure rate of composite resins and conventional glass ionomer cements in primary teeth when compared to permanent teeth. A new generation of light-cured glass ionomer cements (compomers) were suggested to be used as restorative materials for the primary teeth. This study was conducted into two parts. The objective of the first part was to compare shear bond strength of compomers (Compoglass and Dyract) and composite resin (Herculite/Optibond) in both primary and permanent teeth. Buccal and lingual surfaces of extracted sound human primary and permanent molars were ground flat on 600-grit SiC paper and divided into 6 groups of 10 surfaces each. The materials were handled according to the instructions of the manufacturer and placed on to the tooth surfaces via clear plastic tubes of 3 mm in diameter. After light curing for 40 seconds, all samples were thermocycled in water bath of 5 degrees F and 55 degrees F for 500 cycles. The samples were embedded in acrylic resin and sheared with an Instron running at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results (mean shear bond strength) were recorded in MPa. Factorial ANOVA revealed that shear bond strength of Herculite/Optibond in the primary teeth (6.07 +/- 2.63) was significantly lower than that of the permanent teeth (17.61 +/- 4.34) (p < 0.0001), but there was no statistically significant difference of bond strength of Compoglass and Dyract between the primary and the permanent teeth. The results from the first part revealed that no materials tested in the primary teeth could provide a shear bond strength of at least 17.6 MPa as recommended. Thus, the objective of the second part of this study was to evaluate shear bond strength of composite resin (Herculite) using three different dentinal bonding agents (Optibond, One-Step and Amalgambond) in the primary teeth. Methods employed in this part were similar to that of the first part. Results showed that Amalgambond provided significantly higher mean shear bond strength (17.96 +/- 5.77) than One-step (11.79 +/- 4.73) and Optibond (6.07 +/-/- 2.63) as tested by Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA and Mann-Whitney U test (p < 0.0001).
以往的临床和体外研究表明,与恒牙相比,乳牙中复合树脂和传统玻璃离子水门汀的失败率更高。新一代光固化玻璃离子水门汀(复合体)被建议用作乳牙的修复材料。本研究分为两个部分。第一部分的目的是比较复合体(Compoglass和Dyract)和复合树脂(Herculite/Optibond)在乳牙和恒牙中的剪切粘结强度。将拔除的健康人乳牙和恒牙磨牙的颊面和舌面在600目碳化硅纸上磨平,分成6组,每组10个表面。材料按照制造商的说明进行处理,并通过直径3毫米的透明塑料管放置在牙齿表面。光固化40秒后,所有样品在5华氏度和55华氏度的水浴中进行500次热循环。将样品嵌入丙烯酸树脂中,并用Instron以0.5毫米/分钟的十字头速度进行剪切。结果(平均剪切粘结强度)以兆帕记录。析因方差分析显示,Herculite/Optibond在乳牙中的剪切粘结强度(6.07±2.63)显著低于恒牙(17.61±4.34)(p<0.0001),但Compoglass和Dyract在乳牙和恒牙之间的粘结强度无统计学显著差异。第一部分的结果表明,在乳牙中测试的材料均不能提供至少17.6兆帕的推荐剪切粘结强度。因此,本研究第二部分的目的是评估复合树脂(Herculite)在乳牙中使用三种不同牙本质粘结剂(Optibond、One-Step和Amalgambond)时的剪切粘结强度。本部分采用的方法与第一部分相似。结果显示,通过Kruskal-Wallis方差分析和Mann-Whitney U检验(p<0.0001),Amalgambond提供的平均剪切粘结强度(17.96±5.77)显著高于One-step(11.79±4.73)和Optibond(6.07±2.63)。