Effectiveness of all-in-one adhesive systems tested by thermocycling following short and long-term water storage.
Effectiveness of all-in-one adhesive systems tested by thermocycling following short and long-term water storage.
复制标题
通过短期和长期水储存后的热循环测试多合一粘合剂系统的有效性。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2007
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
P. Zaslansky
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
U. Blunck;P. Zaslansky
目的
评价和比较不同水储存期后通过热循环使用一体化粘合剂系统制成的体外V类敷料的边缘完整性，以提供水中静态和准动态劣化分析。
材料和方法
在离体无龋前牙制备标准化的Ⅴ类洞（17组，每组8个标本）。除了作为对照的多瓶粘合剂系统Syntac和OptiBond FL（蚀刻和冲洗技术）和Clearfil SE Bond（自蚀刻）之外，还使用14种一体化粘合剂系统/复合树脂组合填充空腔。在水储存21天后、1年后和3年后再次对样品进行热循环（在5至55 ℃之间进行2000次循环），并在每次热循环处理（TC）之前和之后制备复制品，用于SEM中的定量边缘分析。
结果
在牙本质中，边缘适应性在第一次TC后各组之间没有显著差异。在水储存一年和第二次TC后，Prompt L-Pop（1999）、Adper Prompt L-Pop/Tetric Ceram和One-up Bond F Plus的结果显示，与参考组相比，边缘质量1（MQ 1）评分在统计学上显著降低。当使用多合一粘合剂G-Bond、AQ-Bond、Hybrid Bond和One-up Bond F Plus时，在水储存和TC 1年后，釉质边缘的“连续边缘”百分比较低（p < 0.05）。在水储存和TC 3年后测试的材料中，只有AQ Bond的MQ 1评分显著较低。
结论
虽然所有材料在MQ 1质量评分中表现出劣化，但劣化速率不同，结果表明，不同材料在初始与长期水储存后具有不同的劣化速率。牙本质沿着边缘的退化并不像其他研究预测的那样广泛;然而，牙釉质边缘的结果表明，一瓶多合一粘合剂似乎受到水储存的显著影响。本研究的结果表明，一体化粘合剂组成员的表现彼此非常不同：因此，需要在每种不同粘合剂产品的水平上进一步探索数据。
PURPOSE
To evaluate and compare the marginal integrity of in vitro Class V restorations made with all-in-one adhesive systems by thermocycling after different periods of water storage, to provide an analysis of static and quasi-dynamic deterioration in water.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Standardized Class V cavities (17 groups, 8 specimens each) were prepared in extracted human caries-free anterior teeth. The cavities were filled using 14 all-in-one adhesive systems/composite resin combinations in addition to the multi-bottle adhesive systems Syntac and OptiBond FL (etch-and-rinse technique) and Clearfil SE Bond (self-etching) as controls. The samples were thermocycled after water storage for 21 days, after 1 year and again after 3 years (2000 cycles between 5 and 55 degrees C) and replicas were made before and after each thermocycling treatment (TC) for quantitative marginal analysis in the SEM.
RESULTS
In dentin, marginal adaptation showed no significant differences between all groups after the first TC. After one year of water storage and a second TC, the results for Prompt L-Pop (1999), Adper Prompt L-Pop/Tetric Ceram, and One-up Bond F Plus showed a statistically significant decrease of margin quality 1 (MQ1) score compared to the reference groups. When the all-in-one adhesives G-Bond, AQ-Bond, Hybrid Bond, and One-up Bond F Plus were used, the enamel margins of restorations showed lower percentages of "continuous margins" (p < 0.05) after 1 year of water storage and TC. Of the materials tested after 3 years of water storage and TC, only AQ Bond had a significantly lower MQ1 score.
CONCLUSION
While all materials exhibited deterioration in the MQ1 quality score, the rate of deterioration varied, and the results show that different materials have different deterioration rates after initial vs long-term water storage. The deterioration along margins in dentin was not as extensive as predicted from other studies; however, the results from the enamel margins show that one-bottle all-in-one adhesives seem to be significantly affected by water storage. The results of this study suggest that the all-in-one adhesive group members perform very differently from each other: thus, data need to be explored further at the level of each different adhesive product.