温度循环老化对复合树脂间粘接强度的影响

Effect of thermal cycling on the composite-composite repair bond strength

目的 探讨复合树脂和粘接界面老化后树脂间粘接强度的变化,以期为临床工作提供实验依据.方法 纳入甲基丙烯酸酯类复合树脂（Clearfil AP-X,树脂A）及其配套粘接剂（Clearfil SEBond,粘接剂a）和环氧树脂（Filtek P90,树脂B）及其配套粘接剂（Filtek P90 System Adhesive,粘接剂b）.将树脂A、B分别制作基底树脂块各24块,各分为3组,每组8块：①对照组,基底树脂块表面涂布粘接剂,充填固化新树脂后切成条状试样;②粘接界面老化组,基底树脂块粘接新树脂后切成条状试样,行温度循环老化;③基底树脂老化组,将基底树脂块行温度循环老化后打磨表面,再粘接新树脂,最后切成条状试样.每组中由基底树脂（A、B）-粘接剂（a、b）-新树脂（A、B）构成8种粘接组合,每一组合设2个平行样.体视显微镜下筛选条状试样,每个粘接组合获得15条微拉伸试样,用微拉伸测试仪检测微拉伸强度,对不同粘接组合中粘接界面老化组与对照组、基底树脂老化组与对照组的微拉伸强度行独立样本t检验.结果 粘接界面老化组中,由粘接剂a粘接新树脂A或B的粘接组合[A-a-A：（45.0±3.2）MPa,B-a-A：（41.7±3.3） MPa,A-a-B：（28.6±3.9） MPa,B-a-B：（47.7±6.6） MPa],及由粘接剂b粘接新树脂A的粘接组合[A-b-A：（44.2±4.7） MPa,B-b-A：（38.0±3.2） MPa],微拉伸强度均显著低于各自对照组[A-a-A：（70.7±5.5） MPa,B-a-A：（60.3±5.1） MPa,A-a-B：（44.2±1.6） MPa,B-a-B：（54.1±3.2） MPa,A-b-A：（65.6±7.2） MPa,B-b-A：（59.1±4.1） MPa]（P＜0.05）;而由粘接剂b粘接新树脂B的粘接组合A-b-B及B-b-B的微拉伸强度与各自对照组相比差异均无统计学意义（P＞0.05）.基底树脂老化组中,各粘接组合的微拉伸强度均显著低于各自对照组（P＜0.05）.结论 复合树脂和粘接界面的老化均可对复合树脂间的粘接强度产生影响.

Objective To evaluate the effect of aging of the composite and the adhesive interface on composite-composite repair bond strength.Methods Methacrylate-based composite resin（Clearfil AP-X,composite A） and silorane-based composite resin（Filtek P90,composite B） and their corresponding adhesive,Clearfil SE Bond（adhesive a） and Filtek P90 System Adhesive（adhesive b）,were selected in this study.Twenty-four substrates were prepared from composite A or B separately and divided into three groups,each group had 8 substrates：group one,new composites were adhered to the substrates with the use of adhesive a or b,followed by cutting the blocks into sticks;group two,new composites were adhered to the substrates using adhesive a or b,followed by cutting into sticks and thermal cycling;group three,substrates were thermocycled,then polished and adhered new composites using adhesive a or b,followed by cutting into sticks.Each group had 8 combinations of substrate（A,B）-adhesive（a,b）-repair composite（A,B）.Fifteen sticks without flaws in each combination of 3 groups were selected utilizing stereomicroscope.The data were analyzed by independent samples t test.Results In group two,the microtensile strength（MS） of combinations using adhesive a and composite A or B to repair[A-a-A：（45.0±3.2） MPa,B-a-A：（41.7±3.3） MPa,A-a-B：（28.6±3.9） MPa,B-a-B：（47.7±6.6） MPa],and using adhesive b and composite A to repair[A-b-A：（44.2±4.7） MPa,B-b-A：（38.0±3.2） MPa] decreased significantly compared with corresponding combinations in group 1[A-a-A：（70.7±5.5） MPa,B-a-A：（60.3±5.1） MPa,A-a-B：（44.2±1.6） MPa,B-a-B：（54.1±3.2） MPa,A-b-A：（65.6±7.2） MPa,B-b-A：（59.1±4.1） MPa] （P〈0.05）.However,there was no significant difference between the MS of combinations using adhesive b and composite B to repair in group one and the MS of combinations in group two（P〉0.05）.The MS of all combinations in group three decreased significantly（P〈0.05）.Conclusions Aging of the composite and the adhesive interface might affect the composite-composite repair bond strength.