Ruzicková T, Staninec M, Marshall G W, Hutton J E
Institute of Dental Research, Prague, Czech Republic.
Am J Dent. 1997 Aug;10(4):192-4.
To evaluate the tensile and shear bond strengths of eight adhesives and two amalgams (spherical and lathe cut).
Two high-copper amalgams (Tytin, spherical; and ANA-2000, dispersed phase) and seven adhesives (Panavia EX, C&B Metabond, Chameleon Metal Resin Cement, All-Bond 2, All-Bond C&B, Photo-Bond and Imperva Dual) were evaluated. An epoxy resin (Stycast 1266) was included as a control for comparison because it was an adhesive material of similar viscosity but different chemistry from the dental adhesives. The aluminum surfaces were sandblasted with 50 microns aluminum oxide just prior to coating with adhesive resins. The testing area was defined with a 4 mm circular adhesive Mylar mask. All adhesives were mixed and handled according to manufacturers' instructions. Freshly mixed amalgam was condensed into the test cavity and onto the surface immediately after coating with adhesive. After 24 hours storage, the bond strengths were determined in an Instron testing machine at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. The debonded surfaces were examined in an optical microscope for site of failure. The few samples which showed failure at the aluminum-resin interface were not included in the study. Selected debonded surfaces were examined by SEM. A 2-way ANOVA (General Levin Models-GLM) was used to analyze the data from both the tensile and shear bond strength tests. GLM was used instead of standard ANOVA because of the unbalanced design. The lack of balance occurred because some of the bonding resin/amalgam groups had different sample numbers.
A wide variation in bond strengths was obtained with adhesive resin cements and not all appeared suitable for adhesive amalgam restorations. Panavia EX, C&B Metabond, Chameleon Metal Resin Cement and All-Bond C&B showed the best potential for amalgam bonding, with shear and tensile bond strengths greater than 8 MPa. Viscous, filled versions of adhesives appeared to be more effective. Choice of amalgam appeared to be less important than choice of adhesive.
评估八种粘结剂和两种汞合金（球形和车削型）的拉伸和剪切粘结强度。
评估了两种高铜汞合金（Tytin，球形；ANA - 2000，分散相）和七种粘结剂（Panavia EX、C&B Metabond、Chameleon Metal Resin Cement、All - Bond 2、All - Bond C&B、Photo - Bond和Imperva Dual）。将一种环氧树脂（Stycast 1266）作为对照进行比较，因为它是一种粘度相似但化学性质与牙科粘结剂不同的粘结材料。在涂覆粘结树脂之前，先用50微米的氧化铝对铝表面进行喷砂处理。用4毫米圆形粘结聚酯薄膜掩膜确定测试区域。所有粘结剂均按照制造商的说明进行混合和操作。新鲜混合的汞合金在涂覆粘结剂后立即压入测试腔并铺展在表面上。储存24小时后，在Instron测试机上以2毫米/分钟的十字头速度测定粘结强度。在光学显微镜下检查脱粘表面的失效部位。少数在铝 - 树脂界面出现失效的样品未纳入研究。对选定的脱粘表面进行扫描电子显微镜检查。采用双向方差分析（一般线性模型 - GLM）分析拉伸和剪切粘结强度测试的数据。由于设计不均衡，使用GLM代替标准方差分析。不均衡是因为一些粘结树脂/汞合金组的样本数量不同。
粘结树脂粘结剂的粘结强度差异很大，并非所有粘结剂似乎都适用于粘结汞合金修复体。Panavia EX、C&B Metabond、Chameleon Metal Resin Cement和All - Bond C&B显示出汞合金粘结的最佳潜力，其剪切和拉伸粘结强度大于8兆帕。粘性、填充型粘结剂似乎更有效。汞合金的选择似乎不如粘结剂的选择重要。
