不同类型牙本质与全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘接系统粘接强度的比较

Microtensile Bond Strength of Totaletch and Selfetch Adhesives to Different Dentin

目的:比较不同类型牙本质与全酸蚀和自酸蚀牙本质粘接系统的粘接强度,从而指导临床选择。方法:选择临床常见3种牙本质:正常牙本质(ND)、龋病影响牙本质(CAD)、颈部非龋性硬化牙本质(CSD);两种全酸蚀系统:All-Bond2、Single Bond和两种自酸蚀系统:Fluoro Bond、XenoⅢ,用微拉伸法测试粘接强度。在体视显微镜下观察断裂界面。结果:牙本质类型和粘接系统对粘接强度都有显著影响。不同牙本质上的微拉伸强度有显著差异(P<0.05);SD上全酸蚀和自酸蚀系统的微拉伸强度差异无显著性,XenoⅢ在CAD上的粘接强度较低,CSD中All-Bond2粘接强度较高;体视显微镜下观察断裂多发生在粘接树脂-牙本质界面。结论:不同类型牙本质与全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘接系统粘接强度不同,临床上应根据不同的牙本质类型及实际情况选择合适的粘接系统。

Objective： To evaluate the microtensile bond strength of total-etch and self-etch adhesives to different dentin. Methods： The adhesive systems, two total-etch adhesives （All-Bond 2 and Single Bond） and two self-etch adhesives （Fluoro Bond and Xenolll ） were applied in normal dentin, caries-affected dentin and cervical sclerotic dentin, respectively. The bond strength of samples was tested in a microtensile tester with a speed of 1 mm · min ^-1 Each fractured specimen was examined under stereo microscope. Results： Two-way ANOVA revealed a significant influence of both the type of dentin and the adhesive systems tested on microtensile bond strength values. However, the difference of these two factors was not statistically significant. All the adhesives attained with the highest strength to the normal dentin. In cervical sclerotic dentin, significantly higher results were obtained with All-Bond 2. In caries-affected dentin, significantly lower resuits were obtained with Xeno Ⅲ. The major mode of failure was adhesive failure. Conclusion： The total-etch adhesives evaluated produced different bond strength to self-etching systems in normal, caries-affected and cervical sclerotic dentin. It was recommended that dentin adhesive agent should be used according to the type of dentin and the clinical situation.