三种双固化粘结体系的拉伸粘结强度。

Timothy L Hottel, John Antonelli, Laura Darnell
{"title":"三种双固化粘结体系的拉伸粘结强度。","authors":"Timothy L Hottel,&nbsp;John Antonelli,&nbsp;Laura Darnell","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to test and compare the tensile bond strength of three dual-cure bonding systems on dentinal surfaces.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scotchbond MP Plus (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000), Allbond 2 (Bisco INC. Itasca, IL 60143) and Prime & Bond 2.1 Dual Cure (DENTSPLY Caulk, Milford, DE 19963-0359) were the three agents tested following manufacturer's instructions on flat dentinal surfaces. A total of 60 teeth were obtained, prepared and stored in distilled, deionized water prior to testing. Twenty teeth were distributed randomly to each bonding agent product. Ten of the 20 were light-cured and the other 10 were activated chemically, thereby creating six experimental groups. \"Enforce\" (DENTSPLY Caulk) resin cement was placed in a cylinder on the bonding agent interface in all 60 teeth. A pull test was performed using an Instron machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA 02021) at a speed of 1 mm/min and under continuous load until failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study demonstrated that no significant difference existed among the means of the six sample groups involved when they were compared against each other using two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Yet, when comparing light-cured samples as a group, versus chemically-cured samples, light-cured samples produced a significantly stronger bond. When comparing adhesive systems, regardless of the cure method, Scotchbond MP Plus resulted in a significantly stronger bond than Allbond 2. When only comparing chemically-cured samples, Scotchbond MP Plus was significantly stronger than Allbond 2. Prime & Bond 2.1 was not significantly different than Scotchbond MP Plus or Allbond 2 regardless of cure type. No difference existed when comparing only light-cured samples.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The bond strengths of adhesive systems are critical for the dentist in deciding which product to purchase to ensure the restoration will be a long-lasting one.</p>","PeriodicalId":76685,"journal":{"name":"The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association","volume":"90 4","pages":"20-3; quiz 24-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Tensile bond strength of three dual-cure bonding systems.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy L Hottel,&nbsp;John Antonelli,&nbsp;Laura Darnell\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>The purpose of this study was to test and compare the tensile bond strength of three dual-cure bonding systems on dentinal surfaces.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Scotchbond MP Plus (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000), Allbond 2 (Bisco INC. Itasca, IL 60143) and Prime & Bond 2.1 Dual Cure (DENTSPLY Caulk, Milford, DE 19963-0359) were the three agents tested following manufacturer's instructions on flat dentinal surfaces. A total of 60 teeth were obtained, prepared and stored in distilled, deionized water prior to testing. Twenty teeth were distributed randomly to each bonding agent product. Ten of the 20 were light-cured and the other 10 were activated chemically, thereby creating six experimental groups. \\\"Enforce\\\" (DENTSPLY Caulk) resin cement was placed in a cylinder on the bonding agent interface in all 60 teeth. A pull test was performed using an Instron machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA 02021) at a speed of 1 mm/min and under continuous load until failure.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>This study demonstrated that no significant difference existed among the means of the six sample groups involved when they were compared against each other using two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Yet, when comparing light-cured samples as a group, versus chemically-cured samples, light-cured samples produced a significantly stronger bond. When comparing adhesive systems, regardless of the cure method, Scotchbond MP Plus resulted in a significantly stronger bond than Allbond 2. When only comparing chemically-cured samples, Scotchbond MP Plus was significantly stronger than Allbond 2. Prime & Bond 2.1 was not significantly different than Scotchbond MP Plus or Allbond 2 regardless of cure type. No difference existed when comparing only light-cured samples.</p><p><strong>Clinical relevance: </strong>The bond strengths of adhesive systems are critical for the dentist in deciding which product to purchase to ensure the restoration will be a long-lasting one.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":76685,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association\",\"volume\":\"90 4\",\"pages\":\"20-3; quiz 24-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Journal of the Tennessee Dental Association\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"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 the Tennessee Dental Association","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

摘要

目的:本研究的目的是测试和比较三种双固化粘接系统在牙本质表面的拉伸强度。方法:Scotchbond MP Plus (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000), Allbond 2 (Bisco INC.)。Itasca, IL 60143)和Prime & Bond 2.1 Dual Cure (DENTSPLY Caulk, Milford, DE 19963-0359)是按照制造商的说明在牙本质平面上测试的三种试剂。在测试前,共获得60颗牙齿,将其制备并保存在蒸馏的去离子水中。每种粘结剂产品随机分配20颗牙。20个中有10个是光固化的,另外10个是化学活化的,从而形成了6个实验组。“强制”(DENTSPLY Caulk)树脂水泥在所有60颗牙齿的粘合剂界面上放置在一个圆柱体中。使用Instron机器(Instron Corp., Canton, MA 02021)以1 mm/min的速度在连续负载下进行拉力测试,直到失效。结果:本研究表明,6个样本组间采用双因素方差分析(two-way ANOVA)进行均值比较,差异无统计学意义(p < 0.05)。然而,当将光固化样品作为一个群体与化学固化样品进行比较时,光固化样品产生了明显更强的结合。当比较粘合剂系统时,无论固化方法如何,Scotchbond MP Plus的粘合效果都明显强于Allbond 2。当仅比较化学固化样品时,Scotchbond MP Plus明显强于Allbond 2。无论固化类型如何,Prime和Bond 2.1与Scotchbond MP Plus或Allbond 2无显著差异。光固化样品没有差异。临床相关性:粘接剂系统的结合强度对牙医决定购买哪种产品以确保修复效果持久至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Tensile bond strength of three dual-cure bonding systems.

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to test and compare the tensile bond strength of three dual-cure bonding systems on dentinal surfaces.

Methods: Scotchbond MP Plus (3M Dental Products, St. Paul, MN 55144-1000), Allbond 2 (Bisco INC. Itasca, IL 60143) and Prime & Bond 2.1 Dual Cure (DENTSPLY Caulk, Milford, DE 19963-0359) were the three agents tested following manufacturer's instructions on flat dentinal surfaces. A total of 60 teeth were obtained, prepared and stored in distilled, deionized water prior to testing. Twenty teeth were distributed randomly to each bonding agent product. Ten of the 20 were light-cured and the other 10 were activated chemically, thereby creating six experimental groups. "Enforce" (DENTSPLY Caulk) resin cement was placed in a cylinder on the bonding agent interface in all 60 teeth. A pull test was performed using an Instron machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA 02021) at a speed of 1 mm/min and under continuous load until failure.

Results: This study demonstrated that no significant difference existed among the means of the six sample groups involved when they were compared against each other using two-way ANOVA (p < 0.05). Yet, when comparing light-cured samples as a group, versus chemically-cured samples, light-cured samples produced a significantly stronger bond. When comparing adhesive systems, regardless of the cure method, Scotchbond MP Plus resulted in a significantly stronger bond than Allbond 2. When only comparing chemically-cured samples, Scotchbond MP Plus was significantly stronger than Allbond 2. Prime & Bond 2.1 was not significantly different than Scotchbond MP Plus or Allbond 2 regardless of cure type. No difference existed when comparing only light-cured samples.

Clinical relevance: The bond strengths of adhesive systems are critical for the dentist in deciding which product to purchase to ensure the restoration will be a long-lasting one.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信