渗透树脂和两种粘接剂对早期牙釉质龋渗透能力的比较

Comparison of penetrating resin and two adhesives for early enamel impermeability

目的:比较渗透树脂ICON,XP-Bond与Single Bond2两种常用的粘合剂在早期牙釉质龋病变中的渗透程度。方法:将90颗离体牙在37℃条件下浸入到0. 1M乳酸溶液(pH4. 5)浸泡8周,制成早期牙釉质龋样本。然后随机分成3组,每组30个标本,应用下列树脂,A组:ICON;B组:XP-Bond;C组:Single Bond2。然后用盐酸去除釉质,暴露树脂渗透区域,将标本喷金,用扫描电镜观察。用软件在显微照片上测量树脂标记长度,用统计学方差分析和Scheffe post-test进行分析。结果:ICON的渗透深度(81. 26±19. 27 m)与XP-Bond(59. 84±16. 29 m)。Single Bond2(52. 86±17. 63 m)相比有明显差异(P<0. 05)而两种粘合剂系统之间无明显差异(P> 0. 05)。结论:在本实验的条件下,渗透剂ICON的渗透深度明显高于粘合剂系统;但是对釉质表面的表层有一定的去除作用。

Objective: To compare the penetration of two commonly used adhesives, infiltration resin ICON, XP-Bond and Single Bond2, in early enamel lesions. Methods: 90 isolated teeth were immersed in 0.1 M lactic acid solution(p H 4.5) for8 weeks at 37℃ to prepare an early enamel sample. They were then randomly divided into 3 groups of 30 specimens each using the following resins: Group A: ICON, Group B: XP-Bond, and Group C: Single Bond 2. Then, the enamel was removed with hydrochloric acid, the resin infiltrated area was exposed, and the specimen was sprayed with gold and observed by a scanning electron microscope. Resin label lengths were measured on micrographs using software and analyzed by statistical analysis of variance and Scheffe post-test. Results: ICON penetration depth(81.26±19.27 m) and XP-Bond(59.84±16.29 m).Single Bond2(52.86±17.63 m) was significantly different(P<0.05) and there was no significant difference between the two bonding systems(P >0.05). Conclusion: Under the condition of this experiment, the penetration depth of ICON is significantly higher than the bonding system but the surface layer of enamel was removed to some extent.