Spot-etch technique and other adhesive strategies for provisional veneers.
Pub Date : 2024-08-02
Cinthia Studzinski Dos Santos, Gustavo França Bertholdo de Souza, Laura Morel Lourenço, Noéli Boscato, Rafael Ratto de Moraes, Giana da Silveira Lima
{"title":"Spot-etch technique and other adhesive strategies for provisional veneers.","authors":"Cinthia Studzinski Dos Santos, Gustavo França Bertholdo de Souza, Laura Morel Lourenço, Noéli Boscato, Rafael Ratto de Moraes, Giana da Silveira Lima","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The objective of the present study was to evaluate the influence of different adhesive strategies regarding shear bond strength (SBS) of provisional resin--based materials bonded to the enamel surface as well as on the enamel surface roughness.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Bovine incisors were randomly divided into six groups (n = 10) according to the adhesive strategy used: BRControl (bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etch+BR (spot-etch + bis-acrylic resin); Spot--etchSB2+BR (spot-etch + adhesive + bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etchZ350Flow+BR (spot-etch + flowable composite resin + bis-acrylic resin); SBU+BR (universal adhesive + bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etchSBMP+Z350 (spot-etch + adhesive + composite resin). The enamel surface roughness was determined by a surface profil-ometer. An SBS test was performed in a universal testing machine, and failure modes were classified under magnification. The SBS data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A paired t test was used for enamel surface roughness intragroup comparisons, and the Friedman one-way repeated meas-ures analysis of variance by ranks was used for differences in enamel surface roughness between groups, with the Tukey post hoc test (a = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>BRControl had the lowest SBS values (MPa), with a significant difference (P ≤ 0.001) from the other groups. Spot-etch+BR had the highest SBS values but with no significant differences from the other groups in which the spot-etch technique was also used. Adhesive failure mode was predominant for all groups. BRControl had the lowest surface roughness difference, significantly different (P = 0.001) from all the other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Spot-etch and other adhesive strategies could be applied to increase the SBS values of provisional restorations to enamel compared with no surface pretreatment. However, the adhesive strategy may change the enamel surface roughness, revealing the importance of cleaning the tooth surface.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-08-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: The objective of the present study was to evaluate the influence of different adhesive strategies regarding shear bond strength (SBS) of provisional resin--based materials bonded to the enamel surface as well as on the enamel surface roughness.
Materials and methods: Bovine incisors were randomly divided into six groups (n = 10) according to the adhesive strategy used: BRControl (bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etch+BR (spot-etch + bis-acrylic resin); Spot--etchSB2+BR (spot-etch + adhesive + bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etchZ350Flow+BR (spot-etch + flowable composite resin + bis-acrylic resin); SBU+BR (universal adhesive + bis-acrylic resin); Spot-etchSBMP+Z350 (spot-etch + adhesive + composite resin). The enamel surface roughness was determined by a surface profil-ometer. An SBS test was performed in a universal testing machine, and failure modes were classified under magnification. The SBS data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). A paired t test was used for enamel surface roughness intragroup comparisons, and the Friedman one-way repeated meas-ures analysis of variance by ranks was used for differences in enamel surface roughness between groups, with the Tukey post hoc test (a = 0.05).
Results: BRControl had the lowest SBS values (MPa), with a significant difference (P ≤ 0.001) from the other groups. Spot-etch+BR had the highest SBS values but with no significant differences from the other groups in which the spot-etch technique was also used. Adhesive failure mode was predominant for all groups. BRControl had the lowest surface roughness difference, significantly different (P = 0.001) from all the other groups.
Conclusions: Spot-etch and other adhesive strategies could be applied to increase the SBS values of provisional restorations to enamel compared with no surface pretreatment. However, the adhesive strategy may change the enamel surface roughness, revealing the importance of cleaning the tooth surface.
分享
用于临时贴面的点蚀技术和其他粘接策略。
目的:本研究旨在评估不同粘接策略对粘接在釉质表面的临时树脂基材料的剪切粘接强度(SBS)以及釉质表面粗糙度的影响:根据所使用的粘接策略将牛门牙随机分为六组(n = 10):BRControl(双丙烯酸树脂);Spot-etch+BR(点蚀+;双丙烯酸树脂);Spot--etchSB2+BR(点蚀+;粘接剂+;双丙烯酸树脂);Spot-etchZ350Flow+BR(点蚀+;双丙烯酸树脂);SBU+BR(通用粘合剂+双丙烯酸树脂);Spot-etchSBMP+Z350(点蚀+粘合剂+复合树脂)。珐琅质表面粗糙度由表面轮廓仪测定。在万能试验机上进行了 SBS 试验,并在放大镜下对失效模式进行了分类。SBS 数据采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)。组内珐琅质表面粗糙度比较采用配对 t 检验,组间珐琅质表面粗糙度差异采用弗里德曼单向重复测量方差分析,并进行 Tukey 后检验(a =;0.05):BRC对照组的SBS值(兆帕)最低,与其他组相比差异显著(P≤0.001)。点蚀+BR 的 SBS 值最高,但与同样使用点蚀技术的其他组别相比无显著差异。粘合剂失效模式在所有组别中均占主导地位。BRControl 的表面粗糙度差异最小,与所有其他组相比差异显著(P =;0.001):与不进行表面预处理相比,点蚀和其他粘接策略可以提高临时修复体与釉质的 SBS 值。然而,粘接策略可能会改变釉质表面的粗糙度,这就揭示了清洁牙齿表面的重要性。