Jacqueline Victoria Krempels, Richard Sturm, Konrad Neumann, Tamara Schumacher, Christian Schouten, Franz-Josef Faber, Roland Frankenberger, Matthias Johannes Roggendorf
{"title":"牙龄对牙本质粘连的影响。","authors":"Jacqueline Victoria Krempels, Richard Sturm, Konrad Neumann, Tamara Schumacher, Christian Schouten, Franz-Josef Faber, Roland Frankenberger, Matthias Johannes Roggendorf","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.c_1980","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the effect of tooth age on dentin adhesion of different luting systems to the root canal.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>180 root canals of extracted teeth were divided into three age-specific groups (n = 60): young 20-35 (y), middle-aged 45-60 (m), and older 70-85 (o) years. Ten teeth of each age group were assigned to a luting system: Panavia 21 with ED Primer (P21, Kuraray); Core X Flow with Prime&Bond active and Self-Cure Activator (CXF, Dentsply Sirona); Multilink Automix with Multilink Primer (ML, Ivoclar Vivadent); Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA, Kuraray); Smart Cem 2 (SM2, Dentsply Sirona); Speed CEM Plus (SCP, Ivoclar Vivadent). The root canals of decoronated teeth were instrumented with F360 (Komet) and BR7 (FKG) up to a working length of 8 mm (Ø0.6mm, taper 0.02) and filled with standardized steel spreaders and the selected material. The intracanal bond was determined by a pull-out test. The failure modes were categorized as an adhesive to dentin (AD), adhesive to spreader (AS), cohesive within the composite (C), and mixed (M). Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square test at a significance level of α ≤ 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study showed significant differences for the various luting systems (ANOVA, P 0.05). PSA showed significant differences in bond strength to SM2, CXF, SCP, and ML, as did SM2 to P21 and SCP (Tukey, P 0.05). M (46%) occurred 53% in y and 70% in SCP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No adhesive strategy can yet be recommended for tooth age. Clinically available luting systems show significant differences in their adhesion values.</p>","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":"27 ","pages":"75-80"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057573/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Influence of Tooth Age On Intracanal Dentin Adhesion.\",\"authors\":\"Jacqueline Victoria Krempels, Richard Sturm, Konrad Neumann, Tamara Schumacher, Christian Schouten, Franz-Josef Faber, Roland Frankenberger, Matthias Johannes Roggendorf\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.c_1980\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To investigate the effect of tooth age on dentin adhesion of different luting systems to the root canal.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>180 root canals of extracted teeth were divided into three age-specific groups (n = 60): young 20-35 (y), middle-aged 45-60 (m), and older 70-85 (o) years. Ten teeth of each age group were assigned to a luting system: Panavia 21 with ED Primer (P21, Kuraray); Core X Flow with Prime&Bond active and Self-Cure Activator (CXF, Dentsply Sirona); Multilink Automix with Multilink Primer (ML, Ivoclar Vivadent); Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA, Kuraray); Smart Cem 2 (SM2, Dentsply Sirona); Speed CEM Plus (SCP, Ivoclar Vivadent). The root canals of decoronated teeth were instrumented with F360 (Komet) and BR7 (FKG) up to a working length of 8 mm (Ø0.6mm, taper 0.02) and filled with standardized steel spreaders and the selected material. The intracanal bond was determined by a pull-out test. The failure modes were categorized as an adhesive to dentin (AD), adhesive to spreader (AS), cohesive within the composite (C), and mixed (M). Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square test at a significance level of α ≤ 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The study showed significant differences for the various luting systems (ANOVA, P 0.05). PSA showed significant differences in bond strength to SM2, CXF, SCP, and ML, as did SM2 to P21 and SCP (Tukey, P 0.05). M (46%) occurred 53% in y and 70% in SCP.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No adhesive strategy can yet be recommended for tooth age. Clinically available luting systems show significant differences in their adhesion values.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"27 \",\"pages\":\"75-80\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12057573/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.c_1980\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.c_1980","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:探讨不同牙龄对牙本质与根管粘连的影响。材料与方法:将180颗拔牙根管按年龄分为青年20 ~ 35岁(y)、中年45 ~ 60岁(m)、老年70 ~ 85岁(o) 3组(n = 60)。每个年龄组10颗牙齿分配到一个luting系统:Panavia 21 with ED Primer (P21, Kuraray);Core X Flow与Prime&Bond活性和自固化活化剂(CXF, Dentsply Sirona);Multilink Automix with Multilink Primer (ML, Ivoclar Vivadent);Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA, Kuraray);Smart Cem 2 (SM2, Dentsply Sirona);速度CEM + (SCP, ivocar Vivadent)。用F360 (Komet)和BR7 (FKG)进行根管预备,工作长度为8mm (Ø0.6mm,锥度为0.02),用标准钢铺布器和选定材料填充。通过拔出试验确定管内连接。失效模式分为粘接到牙本质(AD)、粘接到扩展器(as)、复合材料内粘接(C)和混合(M)。统计学分析采用非参数方差分析、Tukey检验和卡方检验,显著性水平为α≤0.05。结果:研究结果显示,不同的治疗系统差异有统计学意义(方差分析,P < 0.05)。PSA与SM2、CXF、SCP和ML的结合强度有显著差异,SM2与P21和SCP的结合强度也有显著差异(Tukey, P 0.05)。M(46%)在y和SCP中分别占53%和70%。结论:目前还不能推荐针对牙龄的粘接剂策略。临床可用的luting系统显示其粘附值有显著差异。
Influence of Tooth Age On Intracanal Dentin Adhesion.
Purpose: To investigate the effect of tooth age on dentin adhesion of different luting systems to the root canal.
Materials and methods: 180 root canals of extracted teeth were divided into three age-specific groups (n = 60): young 20-35 (y), middle-aged 45-60 (m), and older 70-85 (o) years. Ten teeth of each age group were assigned to a luting system: Panavia 21 with ED Primer (P21, Kuraray); Core X Flow with Prime&Bond active and Self-Cure Activator (CXF, Dentsply Sirona); Multilink Automix with Multilink Primer (ML, Ivoclar Vivadent); Panavia SA Cement Plus (PSA, Kuraray); Smart Cem 2 (SM2, Dentsply Sirona); Speed CEM Plus (SCP, Ivoclar Vivadent). The root canals of decoronated teeth were instrumented with F360 (Komet) and BR7 (FKG) up to a working length of 8 mm (Ø0.6mm, taper 0.02) and filled with standardized steel spreaders and the selected material. The intracanal bond was determined by a pull-out test. The failure modes were categorized as an adhesive to dentin (AD), adhesive to spreader (AS), cohesive within the composite (C), and mixed (M). Statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square test at a significance level of α ≤ 0.05.
Results: The study showed significant differences for the various luting systems (ANOVA, P 0.05). PSA showed significant differences in bond strength to SM2, CXF, SCP, and ML, as did SM2 to P21 and SCP (Tukey, P 0.05). M (46%) occurred 53% in y and 70% in SCP.
Conclusions: No adhesive strategy can yet be recommended for tooth age. Clinically available luting systems show significant differences in their adhesion values.