第五代与第六代粘结剂行前牙修复粘固力分析

目的探讨第五代3M Single Bond2全酸蚀粘结剂与第六代Clearfil SE Bond自酸蚀粘结剂进行前牙修复时粘固力的差异，为临床合理选择粘结剂提供依据。方法选取2012年1月至2013年12月牙科患者80例，收集新鲜拔除的上中切牙80颗，随机分为两组，A组使用第．五代3M Single Bond2全酸蚀粘结剂，B组使用第六代Clearfil SE Bond自酸蚀粘结剂，微拉伸测试仪测试微拉伸强度，体视显微镜观察断裂类型。结果A组微拉伸强度与B组比较，差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论第五代3M Single Bond2全酸蚀粘结剂对前牙修复的粘固力优于第六代Clearfil SE Bond自酸蚀粘结剂，两种粘结剂均可满足临床使用需求。

Objective To study the cementation difference of fifth generation of 3M Single Bond 2 total etching adhesive and sixth generation Clearfil SE Bond self etching adhesive for repairing anterior teeth, and provide a basis for rational selection of clinical binder. Methods 80 cases of dental patients from January 2012 to December 2013 in our hospital were collected, which 80 freshly extracted teeth were randomly divided into two groups, one group used the fifth generation of 3M Single Bond 2 total etching adhesive, the other group used the sixth generation Clearfil SE Bond self etching adhesive. The micro tensile test of micro tensile slrength and fracture type stereo microscope observation. Results The micro tensile strength of group A was significantly different from that of group B （ P〈0.05 ） . Conclusion The fifth generation of 3M Single Bond 2 total etching adhesive on the repair of anterior teeth cement is better than that of the sixth generation Clearfil SE Bond self etching adhesive, two binder can meet the clinical needs.