Lithium-Disilicate玻璃陶瓷中残余树脂水泥的清洗方法。

IF 2.5 3区 医学 Q2 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Amir H Nejat, Xiaoming Xu, Edwin Kee, Nathaniel C Lawson
{"title":"Lithium-Disilicate玻璃陶瓷中残余树脂水泥的清洗方法。","authors":"Amir H Nejat,&nbsp;Xiaoming Xu,&nbsp;Edwin Kee,&nbsp;Nathaniel C Lawson","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b1367933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effect of different methods of cleaning residual composite cement from the surface of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic on its bond strength.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Blocks of lithium-silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) were coated with composite cement. Blocks in a positive control (CO+) group received no cement; negative controls (CO-) received composite cement. After water storage (24 h), specimens were cleaned as follows (n = 20/group): BUR: grinding with a fine-grit diamond bur (20 s); ALUM: air abrasion with 50-µm alumina (10 s); GLASS: air abrasion with 50-µm glass beads (10 s); FURN: firing in ceramic furnace and cleaning with ethanol; SULF: immersion in sulfonic acid solution (1 h); HYFL: no additional treatment. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid, aside from the CO- group, and treated with silane. A 1.5-mm diameter cement-filled tube was affixed to the specimens and light polymerized. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 24 h (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 10). Shear bond strength was tested. Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests were performed. Specimens from each group were examined with SEM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bond strength significantly differed according to surface cleaning method (p < 0.01) and storage time (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not significant (p = 0.264). Longer storage time decreased the bond strength. BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN did not differ statistically significantly from CO+, but were significantly greater than CO-. SULF and HYFL did not differ statistically significantly from CO- and were significantly lower than CO+.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cleaning composite cement with BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN restored bond strengths to that of the positive control. However, only GLASS and FURN did not roughen the surface of the underlying lithium-silicate glass-ceramic.</p>","PeriodicalId":55604,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Methods to Clean Residual Resin Cement from Lithium-Disilicate Glass-Ceramic.\",\"authors\":\"Amir H Nejat,&nbsp;Xiaoming Xu,&nbsp;Edwin Kee,&nbsp;Nathaniel C Lawson\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b1367933\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effect of different methods of cleaning residual composite cement from the surface of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic on its bond strength.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Blocks of lithium-silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) were coated with composite cement. Blocks in a positive control (CO+) group received no cement; negative controls (CO-) received composite cement. After water storage (24 h), specimens were cleaned as follows (n = 20/group): BUR: grinding with a fine-grit diamond bur (20 s); ALUM: air abrasion with 50-µm alumina (10 s); GLASS: air abrasion with 50-µm glass beads (10 s); FURN: firing in ceramic furnace and cleaning with ethanol; SULF: immersion in sulfonic acid solution (1 h); HYFL: no additional treatment. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid, aside from the CO- group, and treated with silane. A 1.5-mm diameter cement-filled tube was affixed to the specimens and light polymerized. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 24 h (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 10). Shear bond strength was tested. Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests were performed. Specimens from each group were examined with SEM.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Bond strength significantly differed according to surface cleaning method (p < 0.01) and storage time (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not significant (p = 0.264). Longer storage time decreased the bond strength. BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN did not differ statistically significantly from CO+, but were significantly greater than CO-. SULF and HYFL did not differ statistically significantly from CO- and were significantly lower than CO+.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Cleaning composite cement with BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN restored bond strengths to that of the positive control. However, only GLASS and FURN did not roughen the surface of the underlying lithium-silicate glass-ceramic.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55604,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1367933\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Adhesive Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b1367933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:比较不同清洗方法对锂-disilicate玻璃陶瓷表面残余复合水泥的影响。材料与方法:采用复合水泥包覆硅酸锂玻璃陶瓷块(e.max CAD)。阳性对照(CO+)组砌块不使用水泥;阴性对照组(CO-)接受复合水泥。蓄水24 h后,试样按如下方法清洗(n = 20/组):BUR:用fine-grit金刚石BUR研磨(20 s);ALUM: 50-µm氧化铝气磨(10 s);玻璃:空气磨损50-µm玻璃珠(10 s);转炉:在陶瓷炉中烧制,用乙醇清洗;SULF:在磺酸溶液中浸泡1 h;HYFL:没有额外的治疗。除CO-基团外,所有标本均用氢氟酸蚀刻,并用硅烷处理。将直径1.5 mm的水泥填充管贴于试件上,进行光聚合。标本在37°C水中保存24 h (n = 10)或90天(n = 10)。测试了剪切粘结强度。进行了双向方差分析和事后Tukey检验。对各组标本进行扫描电镜观察。结果:表面清洗方式和保存时间对粘接强度有显著影响(p < 0.01),但交互作用不显著(p = 0.264)。较长的储存时间降低了粘结强度。BUR、ALUM、GLASS、FURN与CO+差异无统计学意义,但显著大于CO-。SULF和HYFL与CO-差异无统计学意义,were显著低于CO+。结论:用BUR、ALUM、GLASS和FURN清洗复合水泥后,粘结强度恢复到阳性对照水平。然而,只有GLASS和FURN没有使底层的锂硅酸盐玻璃陶瓷表面变得粗糙。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Methods to Clean Residual Resin Cement from Lithium-Disilicate Glass-Ceramic.

Purpose: To compare the effect of different methods of cleaning residual composite cement from the surface of lithium-disilicate glass-ceramic on its bond strength.

Materials and methods: Blocks of lithium-silicate glass-ceramic (e.max CAD) were coated with composite cement. Blocks in a positive control (CO+) group received no cement; negative controls (CO-) received composite cement. After water storage (24 h), specimens were cleaned as follows (n = 20/group): BUR: grinding with a fine-grit diamond bur (20 s); ALUM: air abrasion with 50-µm alumina (10 s); GLASS: air abrasion with 50-µm glass beads (10 s); FURN: firing in ceramic furnace and cleaning with ethanol; SULF: immersion in sulfonic acid solution (1 h); HYFL: no additional treatment. All specimens were etched with hydrofluoric acid, aside from the CO- group, and treated with silane. A 1.5-mm diameter cement-filled tube was affixed to the specimens and light polymerized. Specimens were stored in 37°C water for 24 h (n = 10) or 90 days (n = 10). Shear bond strength was tested. Two-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey tests were performed. Specimens from each group were examined with SEM.

Results: Bond strength significantly differed according to surface cleaning method (p < 0.01) and storage time (p < 0.01), but their interaction was not significant (p = 0.264). Longer storage time decreased the bond strength. BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN did not differ statistically significantly from CO+, but were significantly greater than CO-. SULF and HYFL did not differ statistically significantly from CO- and were significantly lower than CO+.

Conclusions: Cleaning composite cement with BUR, ALUM, GLASS, and FURN restored bond strengths to that of the positive control. However, only GLASS and FURN did not roughen the surface of the underlying lithium-silicate glass-ceramic.

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
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry
Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.20
自引率
6.10%
发文量
44
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: New materials and applications for adhesion are profoundly changing the way dentistry is delivered. Bonding techniques, which have long been restricted to the tooth hard tissues, enamel, and dentin, have obvious applications in operative and preventive dentistry, as well as in esthetic and pediatric dentistry, prosthodontics, and orthodontics. The current development of adhesive techniques for soft tissues and slow-releasing agents will expand applications to include periodontics and oral surgery. Scientifically sound, peer-reviewed articles explore the latest innovations in these emerging fields.
×
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