三种水门汀材料拉伸粘接强度的对比研究

Study on bond strength of three kinds of adhesive materials

目的:对比研究三种水门汀材料对牙釉质和牙本质的粘接强度。方法:分别制作60个直径16 mm,厚4 mm的牙釉质及牙本质标准试件,依次用200#、400#、600#水砂纸单面打磨试件,形成标准粘接面。分别将牙釉质及牙本质试件完全随机分为三组,每组20个试件,分别用Fuji I、SmartCem2和Perma Cem三种水门汀材料按使用说明进行粘接,测试不同材料的拉伸粘接强度,并对数据进行统计分析。结果:牙釉质组的粘接强度:Fuji I为5.50±1.84MPa,SmartCem2为17.16±3.40 MPa,Perma Cem为9.18±1.92MPa。三种材料的粘接强度两两比较差异均存在统计学意义(P<0.05),其中,SmartCem2最高,Fuji I最低。牙本质组的粘接强度:Fuji I为4.73±1.23MPa,SmartCem2为11.24±2.60 MPa,Perma Cem为8.51±1.35MPa。三种材料的粘接强度两两比较差异均存在统计学意义(P<0.05),其中,SmartCem2最高,Fuji I最低。结论:SmartCem2的粘接强度在牙釉质组及牙本质组均高于Fuji I及Perma Cem,提示其粘接性能优于另外两种材料,因而可适用于临床修复体的粘接。此外,Perma Cem具有一定的粘接强度及良好的理化性能,也是较适宜的临床粘接材料。

Objective： To comparatively study on bond strength of three kinds of cement materials to enamel and dentin. Methods： Standard specimens of enamel and dentin were respectively made and either group consisted of 60 specimens. The diameter and thickness of these specimens in both groups were 16 mm and 4 mm, and the single-surface was grinded with 200 #, 400 #, 600 # sanding paper in sequence. The enamel and dentin specimens were then respectively divided into three groups according to different cement materials： Fuji I, SmartCem2 and Perma Cem. The tensile bond strength of each material was tested and data was analyzed with SPSS. Results： Tensile bond strength in the enamel group： Fuji I was 5.50± 1.84 MPa, SmartCem2 was 17.16± 3.40 MPa, Perma Cem was 9.18±1.92 MPa. The bond strength between any two materials was of significant difference （P〈0.05）, of which SmartCem2 was the highest and Fuji I was the lowest. Tensile bond strength in the dentin group： Fuji I was 4.73＋ 1.23 MPa, SmartCem2 was 11.24±2.60 MPa, Perma Cem was 8.15 ± 1.35 MPa. The bond strength between any two materials was of significant difference （P〈0.05）, of which SmartCem2 was the highest and Fuji I was the lowest. Conclusion： The bond strength of SmartCem2 both in enamel and dentin group was proved to be higher than Fuji I and Perma Cem, which implied SmartCem2 was of better adhesive property compared with the other two materials and it seemed to be more suitable for restoration bonding. Besides, Perma Cem showed to be a proper adhesive material due to its appropriate bond strength and good physicochemical properties.