A new generation of self-etching adhesives: Comparison with traditional acid etch technique
A new generation of self-etching adhesives: Comparison with traditional acid etch technique
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s00056-008-0709-6
复制
发表时间：
2008-03-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Hirschfelder, Ursula
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Holzmeier, Marcus;Schaubmayr, Martin;Hirschfelder, Ursula
目的：本研究的目的是确定主要用于牙科修复的几种市场领先的自酸蚀（SE）粘合剂（iBond（TM）、Clearfil（TM）S-3 Bond、Clearfil（TM）Protect Bond、AdheSE（R）、Xeno（R）III）的剪切粘结强度（SBS）、蚀刻图案和深度以及脱粘性能，两种实验性自酸蚀粘合剂（exp.邦德1号，实验室Bond 2）和一种实验性的自酸蚀粘固剂（SE Zement），使用和不使用磷酸酸蚀，并将它们与正畸自酸蚀产品（Transbond T Plus SE Primer）和传统的酸蚀技术（Transbond（TM）XT Primer，磷酸）进行比较。然后每个托槽（涂有Transbond（TM）XT复合材料）被粘结（n = 20）。使用卤素装置，将Transbond（TM）XT从切缘和齿龈侧聚合20秒，所述卤素装置定位在距样品恒定5mm和与样品成45度角处。在测量SBS之前，将样品在37 ° C下在蒸馏水中储存24小时。所有样本的ARI（粘合剂残留指数）均根据每个样本的剪切托槽确定。调节后，从扫描电子显微镜（SEM）图像的表面纹理进行了形态学评价，而蚀刻深度使用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜（CLSM）确定。检验所有组的正态分布，并采用ANOVA、Kruskal-Wallis或t检验进行分析。结果：SBS测试的中值分别为：SE Zement 3.0 MPa，SE Zement前磷酸酸蚀11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：7.4 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结1：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：11.2 MPa，实验粘结2：1.2 MPa，实验粘结2：1.2 MPa，实验2：1.2 MPa，实验2：1. 5.6 MPa，iBond（TM）8.1 MPa，Clearfil（TM）S-3 Bond 14.1 MPa，Clearfil（TM）Protect Bond 16.6 MPa，Clearfil（TM）SE Bond 15.9 MPa，AdhesSE（R）16.0 MPa，Xeno（R）III 16.1 MPa，Transbond（TM）SE底漆20.7 MPa，酸蚀刻+Transbond（TM）XT底漆21.0 MPa。除iBond（TM）外，我们观察到在修复牙科中使用的自酸蚀粘合剂之间或与Transbond T Plus SE底漆相比没有显著差异。即使与磷酸蚀刻后的Transbond（TM）XT底漆相比，也没有明显的差异。实验粘合剂和没有酸蚀刻的SE Zement的性能明显差于上述产品，未能证明足够的粘合强度。扫描电镜检查发现，自酸蚀产品的搪瓷蚀刻图案不如磷酸蚀刻明显。CLSM分析显示，根据产品的蚀刻深度在0.5和20 μ m之间。当使用自酸蚀产品时，较少的残留复合材料留在牙釉质表面比磷酸-etch.Conclusions后：所有的粘合剂测试是适合粘接正畸托槽，以减少牙釉质破裂的风险，同时尽量减少蚀刻深度，这反过来意味着较少的条件相关的牙釉质损失。需要更多的开发来改善实验粘合剂和SE Zement的蚀刻性能。
Objective: The aim of this study was to determine the shear bond strength (SBS), etching pattern and depth, and debonding performance of several market-leading, self-etching (SE) adhesives primarily used in restorative dentistry (iBond(TM), Clearfil(TM) S-3 Bond, Clearfil(TM) Protect Bond, AdheSE(R), Xeno(R) III), two experimental self-etching adhesives (exp. Bond 1, exp. Bond 2) and one experimental self-etching cement (SE Zement) used with and without prior phosphoric acid-etching, and to compare them to an orthodontic self-etching product (Transbond T Plus SE Primer) and to traditional acid-etch technique (Transbond(TM) XT Primer, phosphoric acid).Materials and Methods: All adhesives were applied on pumiced and embedded bovine incisors following the manufacturers' instructions. Then one bracket each (coated with Transbond(TM) XT composite) was bonded (n = 20). Transbond(TM) XT was polymerized for 20 s from the incisal and gingival sides using a halogen device positioned at a constant 5 mm from and a 45 degrees angle to the specimen. The specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 degrees C before measuring SBS. The ARI (adhesive remnant index) for all specimens was determined from the sheared-off brackets of each. After conditioning, the surface texture was morphologically evaluated from scanning electron microscope (SEM) images, while the etching depth was determined using a confocal laser-scanning microscope (CLSM). All groups were tested for normal distribution and analyzed by applying ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis or the t test. In addition, a Bonferroni correction was used.Results: The median values of the SBS tests were: SE Zement 3.0 MPa, SE Zement preceded by phosphoric acid etching 11.2 MPa, experimental bond 1: 7.4 MPa, experimental bond 2: 5.6 MPa, iBond(TM) 8.1 MPa, Clearfil(TM) S-3 Bond 14.1 MPa, Clearfil(TM) Protect Bond 16.6 MPa, Clearfil(TM) SE Bond 15.9 MPa, AdheSE(R) 16.0 MPa, Xeno(R) III 16.1 MPa, Transbond(TM) SE Primer 20.7 MPa, acidetching+Transbond(TM) XT Primer 21.0 MPa. With the exception of iBond(TM), we observed no significant differences among the self-etching adhesives used in Restorative Dentistry or in comparison to the Transbond T Plus SE Primer. No significant differences were apparent even when compared to the Transbond(TM) XT Primer after phosphoric acid-etching. Both experimental bonding agents and SE Zement without acid etching performed significantly worse than the products mentioned above, failing to demonstrate sufficient adhesive strength. SEM examination revealed less distinctive enamel-etching patterns for self-etching products than for phosphoric acid-etching. CLSM analysis revealed etching depths between 0.5 and 20 mu m depending on the product. When self-etching products were used, less residual composite remained on the enamel surface than after phosphoric acid-etching.Conclusions: All the adhesives tested are suitable for bonding orthodontic brackets and to reduce the risk of enamel fracture while minimizing etching depth, which in turns means less conditioning-related enamel loss. More development is needed to improve the etching performance of both experimental bonding agents and SE Zement.