胶辊装置机械老化胶粘剂的粘接效能及断裂模式。

A. F. Montagner, N. Opdam, J. de Munck, M. Cenci, B. Van Meerbeek, M. Huysmans
{"title":"胶辊装置机械老化胶粘剂的粘接效能及断裂模式。","authors":"A. F. Montagner, N. Opdam, J. de Munck, M. Cenci, B. Van Meerbeek, M. Huysmans","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a37721","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of water storage and cyclic loading on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and fracture pattern of adhesives to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Midcoronal dentin surfaces (n = 36) were prepared and composite restorations were built up using two adhesives (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups according to the aging conditions (n = 6): 1. CONTROL storage in water for 24 h (CO); 2. water storage: storage in water for 6 months (WS); 3. mechanical loading: 750,000 mechanical cycles (ML) using the Rub&Roll loading device. Specimens were sections into beams and the μTBS was tested. Fracture patterns were analyzed using stereomicroscopy and fractographic analysis was performed using SEM. μTBS data (n = 53-72 specimens) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. The chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of failure modes (p < 0.05). RESULTS Aging conditions and adhesives significantly affected μTBS (p < 0.01). The CO group showed no difference between materials and had highest μTBS. After WS, the self-etch adhesive showed higher μTBS than did the etchand- rinse adhesive. ML resulted in lower μTBS for both adhesives. Materials (p < 0.01) and aging (p < 0.01) significantly influenced the distribution of failure modes. SEM analysis showed that specimens submitted to WS or ML showed features of degradation and fatigue at the fractured interface, depending on the adhesive. CONCLUSION Mechanical loading had a negative effect on the bonding efficacy of both adhesives and influenced the fracture pattern, with specimens presenting a different fracture surface from that observed in water-stored specimens.","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bonding Efficacy and Fracture Pattern of Adhesives Submitted to Mechanical Aging with the Rub&Roll Device.\",\"authors\":\"A. F. Montagner, N. Opdam, J. de Munck, M. Cenci, B. Van Meerbeek, M. Huysmans\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.a37721\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of water storage and cyclic loading on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and fracture pattern of adhesives to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Midcoronal dentin surfaces (n = 36) were prepared and composite restorations were built up using two adhesives (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups according to the aging conditions (n = 6): 1. CONTROL storage in water for 24 h (CO); 2. water storage: storage in water for 6 months (WS); 3. mechanical loading: 750,000 mechanical cycles (ML) using the Rub&Roll loading device. Specimens were sections into beams and the μTBS was tested. Fracture patterns were analyzed using stereomicroscopy and fractographic analysis was performed using SEM. μTBS data (n = 53-72 specimens) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. The chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of failure modes (p < 0.05). RESULTS Aging conditions and adhesives significantly affected μTBS (p < 0.01). The CO group showed no difference between materials and had highest μTBS. After WS, the self-etch adhesive showed higher μTBS than did the etchand- rinse adhesive. ML resulted in lower μTBS for both adhesives. Materials (p < 0.01) and aging (p < 0.01) significantly influenced the distribution of failure modes. SEM analysis showed that specimens submitted to WS or ML showed features of degradation and fatigue at the fractured interface, depending on the adhesive. CONCLUSION Mechanical loading had a negative effect on the bonding efficacy of both adhesives and influenced the fracture pattern, with specimens presenting a different fracture surface from that observed in water-stored specimens.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a37721\",\"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.a37721","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

目的探讨水储存和循环加载对牙本质黏合剂微拉伸结合强度(μTBS)和断裂方式的影响。材料与方法制备中冠牙本质表面(n = 36),采用自蚀刻和蚀刻-冲洗两种粘结剂建立复合修复体。将试件按老化情况随机分为3组(n = 6): 1;控制在水中储存24小时(CO);2. 水储存:在水中储存6个月(WS);3.机械加载:75万机械循环(ML)使用磨辊加载装置。将试样切成梁状,进行μTBS测试。采用体视显微镜和扫描电镜对断裂模式进行了分析。μTBS数据(n = 53 ~ 72份)采用双因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验。失效模式分布比较采用卡方检验(p < 0.05)。结果老化条件和胶粘剂对μTBS有显著影响(p < 0.01)。CO组的μTBS在不同材料间无明显差异。经WS处理后,自蚀刻胶的μTBS高于蚀刻-漂洗胶。ML使两种胶粘剂的μTBS降低。材料(p < 0.01)和老化(p < 0.01)对失效模式分布有显著影响。扫描电镜分析表明,试样经WS或ML处理后,根据胶粘剂的不同,在断裂界面处表现出降解和疲劳的特征。结论机械载荷对两种胶粘剂的粘结效果均有负面影响,并影响了断裂模式,试样的断裂面与水保存试样的断裂面不同。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bonding Efficacy and Fracture Pattern of Adhesives Submitted to Mechanical Aging with the Rub&Roll Device.
PURPOSE To evaluate the effect of water storage and cyclic loading on the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) and fracture pattern of adhesives to dentin. MATERIALS AND METHODS Midcoronal dentin surfaces (n = 36) were prepared and composite restorations were built up using two adhesives (self-etch and etch-and-rinse). The specimens were randomly divided into 3 groups according to the aging conditions (n = 6): 1. CONTROL storage in water for 24 h (CO); 2. water storage: storage in water for 6 months (WS); 3. mechanical loading: 750,000 mechanical cycles (ML) using the Rub&Roll loading device. Specimens were sections into beams and the μTBS was tested. Fracture patterns were analyzed using stereomicroscopy and fractographic analysis was performed using SEM. μTBS data (n = 53-72 specimens) were subjected to two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. The chi-squared test was used to compare the distribution of failure modes (p < 0.05). RESULTS Aging conditions and adhesives significantly affected μTBS (p < 0.01). The CO group showed no difference between materials and had highest μTBS. After WS, the self-etch adhesive showed higher μTBS than did the etchand- rinse adhesive. ML resulted in lower μTBS for both adhesives. Materials (p < 0.01) and aging (p < 0.01) significantly influenced the distribution of failure modes. SEM analysis showed that specimens submitted to WS or ML showed features of degradation and fatigue at the fractured interface, depending on the adhesive. CONCLUSION Mechanical loading had a negative effect on the bonding efficacy of both adhesives and influenced the fracture pattern, with specimens presenting a different fracture surface from that observed in water-stored specimens.
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