Winkler M M, Moore B K, Allen J, Rhodes B
Indiana University School of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Indianapolis 46202, USA.
Oper Dent. 1997 Sep-Oct;22(5):200-8.
Previous studies on amalgam bonded restorations indicated that amalgam bonding agents increased the bond strength of amalgam to tooth structure. This in vitro study was designed to compare how the mode of curing and the presence of filler in the resin would affect the bond strength of amalgam. The five test groups of lining agents for amalgam restorations included Chemical-cured, Unfilled resin (CU-Clearfil New Bond); Light-cured, Unfilled resin with a delayed chemical-cure property (LU*-Clearfil Photo Bond); Light-cured, Filled resin with a delayed chemical-cure property (LF*-Clearfil Photo Bond + Protect Liner); Dual-cured, Unfilled resin (DU-All-Bond 2); and Varnish (V-Copalite). For each group, 20 class 5 cavity preparations were cut on the facial, lingual, or proximal surfaces of human molars, which were embedded in acrylic resin. The preparations were 2.5 mm deep and 3 mm wide at the pulpal floor with a slightly divergent taper. After treating the preparation with the bonding agent, a 3/4-inch, 18-gauge flat-headed wire nail was placed into the cavity with the head at the pulpal floor of the preparation, and Tytin amalgam was then condensed into the preparation around the nail. The restorations were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37 degrees C and then subjected to 2500 thermal cycles (8 degrees C to 48 degrees C). After 1 week, specimens were tested to failure in tension using an Instron Universal Testing Machine (crosshead speed = 2 mm/min) and peak load (kg) was recorded. The mean loads at failure (+/- SD) were LF* 26.4 (+/- 7.0), DU 23.9 (+/- 6.4), LU* 16.0 (+/- 3.1), CU 14.3 (+/- 8.0), and V 9.5 (+/- 5.6). Significant differences were found using a one-way ANOVA and the Games and Howell post hoc test at a significance level of alpha = 0.05. The LF* and DU groups were not significantly different from each other, but they were significantly higher in peak load than all other groups. LU* was significantly higher than the varnish (V) but not significantly higher than CU. CU was not significantly higher than the varnish (V). The adhesives forming a thicker resin interface (the light-cured resin with filled resin liner and the dual-cured unfilled resin) demonstrated significantly greater retention than the light-cured unfilled resin, chemical-cured unfilled resin, and the varnish control.
以往关于汞合金粘结修复体的研究表明，汞合金粘结剂可提高汞合金与牙体组织的粘结强度。本体外研究旨在比较固化方式和树脂中填料的存在如何影响汞合金的粘结强度。用于汞合金修复体的五种衬层材料测试组包括：化学固化、无填料树脂（CU - 可乐丽新粘结剂）；光固化、具有延迟化学固化性能的无填料树脂（LU* - 可乐丽光固化粘结剂）；光固化、具有延迟化学固化性能的填料树脂（LF* - 可乐丽光固化粘结剂 + 保护衬层）；双重固化、无填料树脂（DU - 全粘结剂2）；以及清漆（V - 共聚体）。对于每组，在人磨牙的颊面、舌面或邻面制备20个Ⅴ类洞，将其嵌入丙烯酸树脂中。洞深2.5mm，髓室底宽3mm，呈轻微外展的锥度。用粘结剂处理洞后，将一根3/4英寸、18号平头钢丝钉放入洞中，钉头位于洞的髓室底，然后将钛汞合金围绕钉子填入洞中。修复体在37℃的蒸馏水中储存24小时，然后进行2500次热循环（8℃至48℃）。1周后，使用英斯特朗万能材料试验机对标本进行拉伸破坏测试（十字头速度 = 2mm/min），并记录峰值载荷（kg）。破坏时的平均载荷（±标准差）分别为：LF* 26.4（±7.0）、DU 23.9（±6.4）、LU* 16.0（±3.1）、CU 14.3（±8.0）和V 9.5（±5.6）。使用单因素方差分析和Games - Howell事后检验，在显著性水平α = 0.05时发现了显著差异。LF组和DU组之间无显著差异，但它们的峰值载荷显著高于所有其他组。LU组显著高于清漆组（V），但不显著高于CU组。CU组不显著高于清漆组（V）。形成较厚树脂界面的粘结剂（含填料衬层的光固化树脂和双重固化的无填料树脂）表现出比光固化无填料树脂、化学固化无填料树脂和清漆对照组显著更高的固位力。
