坑缝密封用不同材料的剪切粘结强度

Q4 Medicine
Emil Korporowicz, Piotr Firlej, D. Gozdowski, D. Olczak-Kowalczyk
{"title":"坑缝密封用不同材料的剪切粘结强度","authors":"Emil Korporowicz, Piotr Firlej, D. Gozdowski, D. Olczak-Kowalczyk","doi":"10.25121/newmed.2019.23.4.152","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction. Pit and fissure sealing is a effective procedure in preventing caries, as proven in numerous clinical trials. Materials used for this technique are usually resin-based fissure sealants, but some studies suggested using flowable composites as well. The latest generations of these materials include self-adhesive flowable composites and bulk fill composites. Retention of these materials is one of the main factors that contribute to caries prevention. Therefore, shear bond strength tests that determine the material’s ability to bond with the enamel may help determine their clinical effectiveness. Aim. The aim of the study was to assess the shear bond strength to the enamel of the following materials: Helioseal F (Ivoclar Vivadent), Vertise Flow (Kerr), and SDR (Dentsply Sirona) with XP Bond (Dentsply Sirona). Material and methods. 15 permanent third molars extracted for orthodontic reasons with prepared flat enamel surfaces were randomly divided into three groups. Tested materials ? Helioseal F, Vertise Flow and SDR with XP Bond were polymerised on these surfaces, using a mould. Samples were immersed in distilled water, kept at 37°C for 24 h, and then installed in an Instron testing machine. The machine stopped at sample fracture and the load was recorded. Shear bond strengths were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed. Also, samples were assessed using an optical microscope to assess sample failure type. Results. 35 samples, including 11 Helioseal F, 12 Vertise Flow, and 12 SDR were analysed. SDR with XP bond had the highest shear bond strength ? 23.70 (± 6.35) MPa; Vertise Flow ? 20.10 (± 3.95) MPa, and Helioseal F the lowest ? 15.93 (± 3.17) MPa. There was a statistically significant difference between flowable composites (SDR and Vertise Flow) and resin-based fissure sealant (Helioseal F). There were 18 cohesive sample fractures within the enamel, 14 adhesive fractures and 4 mixed. Conclusions. The shear bond strength of SDR with XP Bond and Vertise Flow is statistically significantly higher than that of Helioseal F. However, it is also crucial to clinically assess the effectiveness of these materials.","PeriodicalId":55698,"journal":{"name":"New Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shear bond strength of different materials used for pit and fissure sealing\",\"authors\":\"Emil Korporowicz, Piotr Firlej, D. Gozdowski, D. Olczak-Kowalczyk\",\"doi\":\"10.25121/newmed.2019.23.4.152\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Introduction. Pit and fissure sealing is a effective procedure in preventing caries, as proven in numerous clinical trials. Materials used for this technique are usually resin-based fissure sealants, but some studies suggested using flowable composites as well. The latest generations of these materials include self-adhesive flowable composites and bulk fill composites. Retention of these materials is one of the main factors that contribute to caries prevention. Therefore, shear bond strength tests that determine the material’s ability to bond with the enamel may help determine their clinical effectiveness. Aim. The aim of the study was to assess the shear bond strength to the enamel of the following materials: Helioseal F (Ivoclar Vivadent), Vertise Flow (Kerr), and SDR (Dentsply Sirona) with XP Bond (Dentsply Sirona). Material and methods. 15 permanent third molars extracted for orthodontic reasons with prepared flat enamel surfaces were randomly divided into three groups. Tested materials ? Helioseal F, Vertise Flow and SDR with XP Bond were polymerised on these surfaces, using a mould. Samples were immersed in distilled water, kept at 37°C for 24 h, and then installed in an Instron testing machine. The machine stopped at sample fracture and the load was recorded. Shear bond strengths were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed. Also, samples were assessed using an optical microscope to assess sample failure type. Results. 35 samples, including 11 Helioseal F, 12 Vertise Flow, and 12 SDR were analysed. SDR with XP bond had the highest shear bond strength ? 23.70 (± 6.35) MPa; Vertise Flow ? 20.10 (± 3.95) MPa, and Helioseal F the lowest ? 15.93 (± 3.17) MPa. There was a statistically significant difference between flowable composites (SDR and Vertise Flow) and resin-based fissure sealant (Helioseal F). There were 18 cohesive sample fractures within the enamel, 14 adhesive fractures and 4 mixed. Conclusions. The shear bond strength of SDR with XP Bond and Vertise Flow is statistically significantly higher than that of Helioseal F. However, it is also crucial to clinically assess the effectiveness of these materials.\",\"PeriodicalId\":55698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"New Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"New Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25121/newmed.2019.23.4.152\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"New Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25121/newmed.2019.23.4.152","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

介绍。许多临床试验证明,牙窝和牙缝密封是预防龋齿的有效方法。用于该技术的材料通常是树脂基裂缝密封剂,但一些研究也建议使用可流动的复合材料。这些材料的最新一代包括自粘流动复合材料和散装填充复合材料。这些物质的保留是有助于预防龋齿的主要因素之一。因此,确定材料与牙釉质结合能力的剪切结合强度测试可能有助于确定其临床效果。的目标。本研究的目的是评估以下材料与牙釉质的剪切结合强度:Helioseal F (Ivoclar Vivadent), Vertise Flow (Kerr)和SDR (Dentsply Sirona)与XP bond (Dentsply Sirona)。材料和方法。15颗因正畸原因拔牙的恒磨牙,牙釉质面平整,随机分为3组。测试材料?使用模具将Helioseal F、Vertise Flow和SDR与XP Bond在这些表面聚合。样品浸泡在蒸馏水中,37℃保存24 h,然后安装在Instron测试机上。机器在试样断裂处停机,并记录载荷。计算剪切粘结强度。进行统计学分析。同时,使用光学显微镜对样品进行评估,以评估样品的失效类型。结果:分析了35份样本,其中11份为Helioseal F, 12份为Vertise Flow, 12份为SDR。具有XP粘结的SDR剪切粘结强度最高。23.70(±6.35)MPa;广告流量?20.10(±3.95)MPa, Helioseal F最低?15.93(±3.17)MPa。可流动复合材料(SDR和Vertise Flow)与树脂基裂缝密封剂(Helioseal F)的差异有统计学意义。牙釉质内粘连性骨折18例,粘连性骨折14例,混合性骨折4例。结论。SDR与XP bond和Vertise Flow的剪切结合强度在统计学上显著高于Helioseal F.然而,临床评估这些材料的有效性也是至关重要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shear bond strength of different materials used for pit and fissure sealing
Introduction. Pit and fissure sealing is a effective procedure in preventing caries, as proven in numerous clinical trials. Materials used for this technique are usually resin-based fissure sealants, but some studies suggested using flowable composites as well. The latest generations of these materials include self-adhesive flowable composites and bulk fill composites. Retention of these materials is one of the main factors that contribute to caries prevention. Therefore, shear bond strength tests that determine the material’s ability to bond with the enamel may help determine their clinical effectiveness. Aim. The aim of the study was to assess the shear bond strength to the enamel of the following materials: Helioseal F (Ivoclar Vivadent), Vertise Flow (Kerr), and SDR (Dentsply Sirona) with XP Bond (Dentsply Sirona). Material and methods. 15 permanent third molars extracted for orthodontic reasons with prepared flat enamel surfaces were randomly divided into three groups. Tested materials ? Helioseal F, Vertise Flow and SDR with XP Bond were polymerised on these surfaces, using a mould. Samples were immersed in distilled water, kept at 37°C for 24 h, and then installed in an Instron testing machine. The machine stopped at sample fracture and the load was recorded. Shear bond strengths were calculated. Statistical analysis was performed. Also, samples were assessed using an optical microscope to assess sample failure type. Results. 35 samples, including 11 Helioseal F, 12 Vertise Flow, and 12 SDR were analysed. SDR with XP bond had the highest shear bond strength ? 23.70 (± 6.35) MPa; Vertise Flow ? 20.10 (± 3.95) MPa, and Helioseal F the lowest ? 15.93 (± 3.17) MPa. There was a statistically significant difference between flowable composites (SDR and Vertise Flow) and resin-based fissure sealant (Helioseal F). There were 18 cohesive sample fractures within the enamel, 14 adhesive fractures and 4 mixed. Conclusions. The shear bond strength of SDR with XP Bond and Vertise Flow is statistically significantly higher than that of Helioseal F. However, it is also crucial to clinically assess the effectiveness of these materials.
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
New Medicine
New Medicine Medicine-General Medicine
CiteScore
0.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: - New Medicine is indexed in Index Copernicus (IC value 6.60) and registered in Embase/Excerpta Medica. - It is published in English and some issues in other languages. - New Medicine covers a broad spectrum of disciplines. - New Medicine is sent to national and medical libraries in several countries all over the world and to some libraries and institutions in Poland. It is also present on medical conferences. - New Medicine is published under the patronage of Polish Society of Health Education.
×
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