Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives - Part II: etching effects on unground enamel
Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching adhesives - Part II: etching effects on unground enamel
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/s0109-5641(00)00104-4
复制
发表时间：
2001-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Tay, FR
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Pashley, DH;Tay, FR
目的：研究三种自酸蚀粘接剂对未磨牙釉质的侵蚀性。超微结构特征和微拉伸粘结强度进行了检查，首先使用这些粘合剂作为蚀刻和树脂渗透组分，然后通过用相同的对照树脂替代专利树脂来单独检查它们的蚀刻效力。方法：对于SEM检查，从人提取的双尖牙的颊侧、中冠侧、未研磨的釉质用Clearfil Mega Bond（Kuraray）、Non-Rinse Conditioner（NRC; Dentsply DeTrey）或Prompt L-Pop（ESPE）。对照组用32%磷酸（Bisco）酸蚀15 s。在检查蚀刻功效之前，将它们全部冲洗掉。对于TEM检查，使用推荐的自蚀刻粘合剂。使用Prime&Bond NT（Dentsply）进一步粘结用NRC处理的未研磨釉质，而蚀刻对照组中的那些使用All-Bond 2（Bisco）粘结。将完全脱矿质的树脂复制品包埋在环氧树脂中以检查树脂渗透的程度。对于微拉伸粘结强度评价，首先使用自蚀刻粘合剂蚀刻和粘结试样。第二组样本用自蚀刻粘合剂蚀刻，冲洗但使用对照粘合剂粘合。修复后与Z100 QM牙科产品），他们被分割成均匀的横截面积的梁和强调failure.Results：无泪釉质的蚀刻图案，如通过SEM所揭示的，和表面下的混合层形态，如通过TEM所揭示的，根据侵略性的自酸蚀粘合剂而变化。Clearfil Mega Bond显示出最温和的蚀刻图案，而Prompt L-Pop产生的蚀刻效果接近全蚀刻对照组。三个实验组的微拉伸粘结强度均明显低于对照组，但差异无统计学意义。当自酸蚀后的粘合剂与对照粘合剂取代，NRC/Prime&Bond NT和Prompt L-Pop的粘结强度与对照组没有显着差异，但显着高于Clearfil Mega Bond.Significance：无论是酸蚀效率和强度的树脂是重要的影响因素，在自酸蚀粘合剂的粘结到未研磨的釉质。(C)2001年牙科材料学院。由爱思唯尔科技有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Objectives: The aggressiveness of three self-etching adhesives on unground enamel was investigated. Ultrastructural features and microtensile bond strength were examined, first using these adhesives as both the etching and resin-infiltration components, and then examining their etching efficacy alone through substitution of the proprietary resins with the same control resins.Methods: For SEM examination, buccal, mid-coronal, unground enamel from human extracted bicuspids were etched with either Clearfil Mega Bond (Kuraray), Non-Rinse Conditioner (NRC; Dentsply DeTrey) or Prompt L-Pop (ESPE). Those in the control group were etched with 32% phosphoric acid (Bisco) for 15 s. They were all rinsed off prior to examination of the etching efficacy. For TEM examination, the self-etching adhesives were used as recommended. Unground enamel treated with NRC were further bonded using Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply), while those in the etched, control group were bonded using All-Bond 2 (Bisco). Completely demineralized, resin replicas were embedded in epoxy resin for examination of the extent of resin infiltration. For microtensile bond strength evaluation, specimens were first etched and bonded using the self-etching adhesives. A second group of specimens were etched with the self-etching adhesives, rinsed but bonded using a control adhesive. Following restoration with Z100 QM Dental Products), they were sectioned into beams of uniform cross-sectional areas and stressed to failure.Results: Etching patterns of aprismatic enamel, as revealed by SEM, and the subsurface hybrid layer morphology, as revealed by TEM, varied according to the aggressiveness of the self-etching adhesives. Clearfil Mega Bond exhibited the mildest etching patterns, while Prompt L-Pop produced an etching effect that approached that of the total-etch control group. Microtensile bond strength of the three experimental groups were all significantly lower than the control group, but not different from one another. When the self-etching adhesives were replaced with the control adhesive after etching, bond strengths of NRC/Prime&Bond NT and Prompt L-Pop were not significantly different from that of the control group, but were significantly higher than that of Clearfil Mega Bond.Significance: Both etching efficacy and strength of the resins are important contributing factors in bonding of self-etching adhesives to unground enamel. (C) 2001 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.