Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de Siqueira, Luana Paraíso Muniz, Lívia Câmara de Carvalho Galvão, Michel Wendilnger Cantanhede Ferreira, Alessandr Reis, Andres Felipe Millan Cardenas, Alessandro D Loguercio
{"title":"用乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)预处理后通用粘合剂与氟化珐琅质的粘接效果。","authors":"Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de Siqueira, Luana Paraíso Muniz, Lívia Câmara de Carvalho Galvão, Michel Wendilnger Cantanhede Ferreira, Alessandr Reis, Andres Felipe Millan Cardenas, Alessandro D Loguercio","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.b2701635","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effect of active pre-conditioning with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) vs 37% phosphoric acid (PA) on the resin-enamel microshear bond strength (µSBS), enamel-etching pattern, and in situ degree of conversion (in situ DC) of four universal adhesives on sound and fluorotic enamel.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, 448 extracted human molars (224 without fluorosis and 224 with fluorosis) were sectioned into four parts and divided into 16 experimental groups based on the enamel surface (sound or fluorotic enamel), adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB], Futurabond U [FBU], iBond Universal [IBU], or Scotchbond Universal [SBU]), and enamel conditioning agent (PA or EDTA). The specimens were stored for 24 h and tested under shear stress at 1.0 mm/min to determine the µSBS. The adhesive-enamel interfaces were evaluated for in situ DC using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope. The µSBS and in situ DC data were analyzed separately using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (a = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sound enamel showed higher µSBS and in situ DC compared to fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed for µSBS, in situ DC (p > 0.05), or etching patterns when PA and EDTA etching were compared in sound and fluorotic enamel. Moreover, CUB and SBU showed higher mean µSBS than did FBU and IBU in both sound and fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to PA, active pre-conditioning with EDTA showed similar µSBS and enamel etching patterns for all the adhesives in fluorotic enamel, without compromising the in situ DC.</p>","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bonding Efficacy of Universal Adhesives to Fluorotic Enamel after Pre-conditioning with EDTA.\",\"authors\":\"Fabiana Suelen Figuerêdo de Siqueira, Luana Paraíso Muniz, Lívia Câmara de Carvalho Galvão, Michel Wendilnger Cantanhede Ferreira, Alessandr Reis, Andres Felipe Millan Cardenas, Alessandro D Loguercio\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.b2701635\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effect of active pre-conditioning with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) vs 37% phosphoric acid (PA) on the resin-enamel microshear bond strength (µSBS), enamel-etching pattern, and in situ degree of conversion (in situ DC) of four universal adhesives on sound and fluorotic enamel.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this study, 448 extracted human molars (224 without fluorosis and 224 with fluorosis) were sectioned into four parts and divided into 16 experimental groups based on the enamel surface (sound or fluorotic enamel), adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB], Futurabond U [FBU], iBond Universal [IBU], or Scotchbond Universal [SBU]), and enamel conditioning agent (PA or EDTA). The specimens were stored for 24 h and tested under shear stress at 1.0 mm/min to determine the µSBS. The adhesive-enamel interfaces were evaluated for in situ DC using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope. The µSBS and in situ DC data were analyzed separately using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (a = 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Sound enamel showed higher µSBS and in situ DC compared to fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed for µSBS, in situ DC (p > 0.05), or etching patterns when PA and EDTA etching were compared in sound and fluorotic enamel. Moreover, CUB and SBU showed higher mean µSBS than did FBU and IBU in both sound and fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Compared to PA, active pre-conditioning with EDTA showed similar µSBS and enamel etching patterns for all the adhesives in fluorotic enamel, without compromising the in situ DC.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.b2701635\",\"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.b2701635","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:比较17%乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)与37%磷酸(PA)的活性预处理对四种通用粘接剂在健全釉质和氟斑牙釉质上的树脂-釉质微剪切粘接强度(μSBS)、釉质-蚀刻模式和原位转换度(原位DC)的影响:本研究将 448 颗拔出的人类臼齿(224 颗无氟斑牙和 224 颗有氟斑牙)分成四部分,并根据釉质表面(健全釉质或氟斑牙)、粘合剂(Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB]、Futurabond U [FBU]、iBond Universal [IBU] 或 Scotchbond Universal [SBU])和釉质调理剂(PA 或 EDTA)分成 16 个实验组。试样存放 24 小时后,在 1.0 毫米/分钟的剪切应力下进行测试,以确定 µSBS 值。使用显微拉曼光谱对粘合剂-珐琅质界面进行原位直流电评估。使用扫描电子显微镜对珐琅质蚀刻模式进行了评估。使用三方方差分析和Tukey事后检验(a = 0.05)分别分析了μSBS和原位直流电数据:结果:与氟化釉质相比,健全釉质的µSBS和原位DC更高(p < 0.05)。然而,在对健全釉质和氟斑牙进行 PA 和 EDTA 蚀刻比较时,未观察到 µSBS 、原位 DC (p > 0.05)或蚀刻模式有明显差异。此外,在健全釉质和氟化釉质中,CUB和SBU比FBU和IBU显示出更高的平均μSBS(p < 0.05):与 PA 相比,用 EDTA 进行主动预处理对氟化釉质中的所有粘合剂都显示出相似的 µSBS 和釉质蚀刻模式,而不会影响原位 DC。
Bonding Efficacy of Universal Adhesives to Fluorotic Enamel after Pre-conditioning with EDTA.
Purpose: To compare the effect of active pre-conditioning with 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) vs 37% phosphoric acid (PA) on the resin-enamel microshear bond strength (µSBS), enamel-etching pattern, and in situ degree of conversion (in situ DC) of four universal adhesives on sound and fluorotic enamel.
Material and methods: In this study, 448 extracted human molars (224 without fluorosis and 224 with fluorosis) were sectioned into four parts and divided into 16 experimental groups based on the enamel surface (sound or fluorotic enamel), adhesive (Clearfil Universal Bond [CUB], Futurabond U [FBU], iBond Universal [IBU], or Scotchbond Universal [SBU]), and enamel conditioning agent (PA or EDTA). The specimens were stored for 24 h and tested under shear stress at 1.0 mm/min to determine the µSBS. The adhesive-enamel interfaces were evaluated for in situ DC using micro-Raman spectroscopy. The enamel-etching pattern was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope. The µSBS and in situ DC data were analyzed separately using three-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test (a = 0.05).
Results: Sound enamel showed higher µSBS and in situ DC compared to fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05). However, no significant difference was observed for µSBS, in situ DC (p > 0.05), or etching patterns when PA and EDTA etching were compared in sound and fluorotic enamel. Moreover, CUB and SBU showed higher mean µSBS than did FBU and IBU in both sound and fluorotic enamel (p < 0.05).
Conclusions: Compared to PA, active pre-conditioning with EDTA showed similar µSBS and enamel etching patterns for all the adhesives in fluorotic enamel, without compromising the in situ DC.