el-Kalla I H, García-Godoy F
Department of Paediatric Dentistry, Mansoura University, Egypt.
Int J Paediatr Dent. 1998 Jun;8(2):103-14. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-263x.1998.00074.x.
To (1) test and compare the shear bond strength of compomers (Compoglass, Dyract, Hytac) to primary and permanent dentin, (2) compare the values to those obtained with a resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer), and (3) evaluate the material-dentin interfacial morphology.
The facial and lingual surfaces of 32 primary and 32 permanent teeth were used. The manufacturers' instructions were followed for the bonding procedures. After bonding, the teeth were thermocycled and sheared.
ANOVA and Student-Newman-Keuls test revealed that the shear bond strength for Dyract was significantly higher than for the other restorative systems tested, both for primary (P < 0.001) and permanent (P < 0.01) teeth. Compoglass bond strength was significantly lower than Vitremer for the primary teeth dentin (P < 0.01). The shear bond strength for Compoglass to permanent dentin was significantly lower than for all other restorative systems (P < 0.001). There was a significantly higher shear bond strength for Compoglass (P < 0.05) and Dyract (P < 0.01) restorative systems for primary compared to permanent teeth. For all products tested, all samples revealed cohesive failures. The highest frequency of cohesive failure was reported with Compoglass in both primary and permanent teeth and for Hytac and Vitremer in permanent teeth. Micromorphologically, all restorative systems revealed good adaptation to the underlying dentin; however, there was no evidence of the formation of a hybrid layer or deep resin penetration inside the dentinal tubules. There was no difference in the interfacial morphological adaptation between the primary and permanent teeth.
The compomers tested had shear bond strength values between those of resin-modified glass ionomers and resin composites.
(1) 测试并比较复合体(Compoglass、Dyract、Hytac)与乳牙和恒牙牙本质的剪切粘结强度;(2) 将这些值与用树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀(Vitremer)获得的值进行比较;(3) 评估材料与牙本质的界面形态。
使用了32颗乳牙和32颗恒牙的唇面和舌面。粘结程序遵循制造商的说明。粘结后,对牙齿进行热循环和剪切测试。
方差分析和Student-Newman-Keuls检验显示,Dyract的剪切粘结强度在乳牙(P < 0.001)和恒牙(P < 0.01)中均显著高于其他测试的修复系统。对于乳牙牙本质,Compoglass的粘结强度显著低于Vitremer(P < 0.01)。Compoglass与恒牙牙本质的剪切粘结强度显著低于所有其他修复系统(P < 0.001)。与恒牙相比,Compoglass(P < 0.05)和Dyract(P < 0.01)修复系统在乳牙中的剪切粘结强度显著更高。对于所有测试产品,所有样本均显示为内聚破坏。Compoglass在乳牙和恒牙中以及Hytac和Vitremer在恒牙中的内聚破坏频率最高。微观形态上,所有修复系统均显示出与下层牙本质的良好适应性;然而,没有证据表明形成了混合层或树脂深入牙本质小管内部。乳牙和恒牙之间的界面形态适应性没有差异。
所测试的复合体的剪切粘结强度值介于树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀和树脂复合材料之间。