Assessment of current adhesives in class I cavity: Nondestructive imaging using optical coherence tomography and microtensile bond strength
Assessment of current adhesives in class I cavity: Nondestructive imaging using optical coherence tomography and microtensile bond strength
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.dental.2015.06.013
复制
发表时间：
2015-09-01
期刊：
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
Giannini, Marcelo
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Makishi, Patricia;Thitthaweerat, Suppason;Giannini, Marcelo
目标.评价不同粘接系统对牙本质I类洞的封闭能力和微拉伸粘接强度。圆形锥形牙本质洞（直径3 mm，高度1.5mm），用复合树脂修复（Clearfil Majesty Posterior），带有两步蚀刻和冲洗粘合剂系统（Adper Single Bond 2：ASB 2），两步自蚀刻粘合剂（Clearfil SE Bond：CSEB），多功能粘合剂（G-Bond Plus：英镑; Tri-S Bond Plus：TSBP），或无粘合剂（对照），或使用低收缩复合材料与其适当的粘合剂（Filtek Silorane，Silorane粘合剂系统：FSS）粘合。在24小时水储存或10，000次热应力循环后，将样本浸入造影剂中。使用光学相干断层扫描（OCT）获得二维和三维图像。计算横截面图像中界面区高亮度的平均百分比（HB%），作为界面处造影剂或间隙的指标。然后将试样切成梁并测量MTBS。粘合剂的HB%（ASB 2 = TSBP = CSEB < FSS = GBP）和MTBS（CSEB = ASB 2，CSEB > TSBP = GBP = FSS，ASB 2> FSS）在粘合剂之间存在显著差异。老化后，GBP和FSS样本的HB%增加，而FSS样本的MTBS降低（ANOVA，Tukey事后分析，p < 0.05）。HB%和MTBS显著负相关（p = 0.002）。共聚焦激光扫描和扫描电子显微镜证实了造影剂在间隙内的浸润。粘接剂的粘接强度与全腔密封性能之间存在显著的相关性。老化后，两步系统显示出与全合一和Silorane系统相同或上级的性能。(C)2015年牙科材料学院。由爱思唯尔有限公司出版。保留所有权利。
Objectives. To evaluate the sealing ability and the microtensile bond strength (MTBS) of different adhesive systems bonded to dentin in class I cavities.Methods. Round tapered dentin cavities (3-mm diameter, 1.5-mm height) prepared in extracted human molars were restored using composite resin (Clearfil Majesty Posterior) with two-step etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Adper Single Bond 2: ASB2), two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond: CSEB), all-in-one adhesives (G-Bond Plus: GBP; Tri-S Bond Plus: TSBP), or no adhesive (Control), or bonded using low-shrinkage composite with its proper adhesive (Filtek Silorane, Silorane Adhesive System: FSS). After 24-h water storage or 10,000 cycles of thermal stress, the specimens were immersed into a contrast agent. Two and three-dimensional images were obtained using optical coherence tomography (OCT). The mean percentage of high brightness (HB%) at the interfacial zone in cross-sectional images was calculated as an indicator of contrast agent or gap at the interface. The specimens were then sectioned into beams and the MTBS measured.Results. The HB% (ASB2 = TSBP = CSEB < FSS = GBP) and MTBS (CSEB = ASB2, CSEB > TSBP = GBP = FSS, ASB2 > FSS) differed significantly among the adhesives. After aging, HB% increased for GBP and FSS specimens, and the MTBS decreased for FSS specimens (ANOVA, Tukey's post hoc, p < 0.05). The HB% and MTBS were significantly and negatively correlated (p = 0.002). Confocal laser scanning and scanning electron micrographs confirmed contrast agent infiltration within the gap.Signficance. There was a significant correlation between sealing performance and bond strength of the adhesives in the whole cavity. After aging, the two-step systems showed equal or superior performance to the all-in-one and Silorane systems. (C) 2015 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.