| 古林娟,李秦,赵育明,伊远平,杨静,赵信义.干燥和湿润环境下不同牙本质粘接剂的微拉伸粘接强度比较[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2019,28(2):10-15. |
| 干燥和湿润环境下不同牙本质粘接剂的微拉伸粘接强度比较 |
| The comparison of microtensile bond strengths of different dentin adhesives under dry and wet condition |
| 投稿时间：2018-09-06 修订日期：2019-03-14 |
| DOI：10.11752/j.kqcl.2019.02.02 |
| 中文关键词: 微拉伸粘接强度 牙本质粘接剂 干燥环境 湿润环境 |
| 英文关键词:Microtensile bond strength (μTBS) Dentin adhesive Dry enviroment Wet environment |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金（编号：81571014） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 993 |
| 全文下载次数: 881 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的 应用6种不同类型牙本质粘接剂，比较其粘接试样在干燥和湿润测试环境下的微拉伸粘接强度，并分析产生差异的原因。方法 选择人离体无龋第三磨牙24颗，暴露面牙本质，将试样随机均分为6组，分别使用6种粘接剂（Prime ＆ Bond NT、Contax、Clearfil SE Bond、Adper Prompt、Clearfil S3 Bond和i Bond）和一种复合树脂制作牙本质-复合树脂粘接体，然后纵向片切制备横截面积约0.8 mm2的微拉伸试样，每种粘接材料的拉伸试样再分成3个亚组（每个亚组n=20）：A组（试样粘接界面保持湿润）、B组（试样在空气中干燥2 h后测试）、C组（试样在空气中干燥24 h后测试），测试微拉伸粘接强度，最后扫描电镜观察断裂模式。结果 i Bond处理的A组与B、C组粘接强度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），其余5种粘接剂的A组粘接强度均低于B、C组（P<0.05）。断裂模式均以界面破坏为主，与试样干湿状态无关。结论 干燥环境下所测得牙本质粘接剂的微拉伸粘接强度值高于湿润环境下所测得的强度值。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective To compare the bond strengths of dentin microtensile bonding specimens of six dentin adhesives tested under dry and wet condition, and to analyze the causes of the differences. Methods The occlusal dentin surface of 24 freshly extracted and non-carious third molars were exposed, and were randomly divided into six groups. Six different types of adhesives (Prime & Bond NT, Contax, Clearfil SE Bond, Adper Prompt, Clearfil S3 Bond, i Bond) and a composite resin were used for dentin-composite resin bonding respectively. Microtensile specimens with a cross-sectional area of about 0.8 mm2 were prepared. Then the specimens were divided into three subgroups randomly (n=20):Group A (keep wet), Group B (test after 2 hours of drying), and Group C (test after 24 hours of drying), then microtensile bond strengthes (μTBS) of different groups were tested. At last, the SEM images of the fractured areas were used to evaluate the fracture mode. Results There were no significant differences in the μTBS between the three groups of i Bond (P>0.05). The μTBS of the other five adhesives in the wet groups were significantly lower than those in the dry groups (P<0.05). The fracture mode was mainly based on interface failure, and was not related to the dry and wet state of the sample. Conclusion The μTBS of the sample measured under the dry environment was higher than that under the wet environment. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|