Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel.
Bonding characteristics of self-etching adhesives to intact versus prepared enamel.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1708-8240.2003.tb00280.x
复制
发表时间：
2003-01-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Geraldeli, Saulo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Perdigao, Jorge;Geraldeli, Saulo
目得：本研究测试了零假设，即牙釉质表面的制备不会影响自酸蚀粘合剂材料的牙釉质微拉伸粘结强度。材料和方法：用金刚石锯修剪十颗牛切牙，以获得面积为8 x 8 mm的方形牙釉质表面。（1）ABF（Kuraray），一种实验性双瓶自蚀刻粘合剂;（2）Clearfil SE Bond（Kuraray），一种双瓶自蚀刻粘合剂;（3）One-Up Bond F（Tokuyama），一种多合一粘合剂;（4）Prompt L-Pop（3 M ESPE），一种多合一粘合剂;和（5）Single Bond（3 M ESPE），一种用作阳性对照的两瓶全蚀刻粘合剂。对于每个样本，一半在喷水下用金刚石钻头粗糙化5秒，而另一半则保持不准备。粘合剂按照制造商的指示施用。将通用混合复合树脂（Filtek Z250，3 M ESPE）插入三层，每层1.5mm，并光固化。在X和Y方向上对样本进行切片，以获得横截面积为0.8 +/- 0.2 mm 2的粘合棒。在Instron中以每分钟1 mm的横向速度测试棒的张力。在p <0.05时用双向方差分析和邓肯检验进行统计分析。10个额外的标本进行了处理，用于观察下的场发射扫描电子microscope.RESULTS：单键，总蚀刻粘合剂，导致统计学上更高的微拉伸粘结强度比任何其他粘合剂，无论牙釉质制备（未准备= 31.5 MPa;准备= 34.9 MPa，没有统计学差异，p <0.05）。所有的自酸蚀粘合剂导致更高的微拉伸粘结强度时，牙釉质粗糙时，比牙釉质没有准备好。然而，对于ABF和Clearfil SE Bond，该差异在p > 0.05时不具有统计学显著性。当应用于研磨牙釉质时，Prompt L-Pop的平均粘结强度与Clearfil SE Bond和ABF的平均粘结强度无统计学差异。One-Up Bond F不与未制备的牙釉质粘合。商业自酸蚀粘合剂上制备的釉质比未制备的釉质表现更好。场发射扫描电子显微镜揭示了一个深interprismatic蚀刻图案的总蚀刻粘合剂，而自蚀刻系统导致的蚀刻图案范围从缺席到适度。
PURPOSE: This study tested the null hypothesis that the preparation of the enamel surface would not affect the enamel microtensile bond strengths of self-etching adhesive materials.MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten bovine incisors were trimmed with a diamond saw to obtain a squared enamel surface with an area of 8 x 8 mm. The specimens were randomly assigned to five adhesives: (1) ABF (Kuraray), an experimental two-bottle self-etching adhesive; (2) Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray), a two-bottle self-etching adhesive; (3) One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama), an all-in-one adhesive; (4) Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE), an all-in-one adhesive; and (5) Single Bond (3M ESPE), a two-bottle total-etch adhesive used as positive control. For each specimen, one half was roughened with a diamond bur for 5 seconds under water spray, whereas the other half was left unprepared. The adhesives were applied as per manufacturers' directions. A universal hybrid composite resin (Filtek Z250, 3M ESPE) was inserted in three layers of 1.5 mm each and light-cured. Specimens were sectioned in X and Y directions to obtain bonded sticks with a cross-sectional area of 0.8 +/- 0.2 mm2. Sticks were tested in tension in an Instron at a cross-speed of 1 mm per minute. Statistical analysis was carried out with two-way analysis of variance and Duncan's test at p < .05. Ten extra specimens were processed for observation under a field-emission scanning electron microscope.RESULTS: Single Bond, the total-etch adhesive, resulted in statistically higher microtensile bond strength than any of the other adhesives regardless of the enamel preparation (unprepared = 31.5 MPa; prepared = 34.9 MPa, not statistically different at p < .05). All the self-etching adhesives resulted in higher microtensile bond strength when enamel was roughened than when enamel was left unprepared. However, for ABF and for Clearfil SE Bond this difference was not statistically significant at p > .05. When applied to ground enamel, mean bond strengths of Prompt L-Pop were not statistically different from those of Clearfil SE Bond and ABF. One-Up Bond F did not bond to unprepared enamel. Commercial self-etching adhesives performed better on prepared enamel than on unprepared enamel. The field-emission scanning electron microscope revealed a deep interprismatic etching pattern for the total-etch adhesive, whereas the self-etching systems resulted in an etching pattern ranging from absent to moderate.