当代复合水泥与牙本质在水储存6个月后的粘结效果

M. Sarr, B. Faye, Fatou Lèye-Benoist, K. Bane, A. Aidara, B. Touré
{"title":"当代复合水泥与牙本质在水储存6个月后的粘结效果","authors":"M. Sarr, B. Faye, Fatou Lèye-Benoist, K. Bane, A. Aidara, B. Touré","doi":"10.4103/2321-4619.188231","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: To evaluate the bonding effectiveness to dentin of eight dual-cure composite cements after 6-month water storage. Materials and Methods: This study is a follow-up of a recent study that investigated the 1-week bonding effectiveness of feldspathic ceramic blocks luted to dentin using the same composite cements and experimental protocol. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different composite cements, including two etch-and-rinse cements (Calibra, Dentsply; Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent), two self-etch cements (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray; Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray), and four self-adhesive cements (Unicem, 3M ESPE; Maxcem, Kerr; Monocem, Shofu; G-Cem, GC), was measured using a standardized μTBS protocol after 6-month water storage. As control, a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) combined with a microhybrid restorative composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was used. Twenty-seven human third molars were used with specific preparation, and after 6-month water storage, microspecimens were prepared and subjected to a μTBS test. Results: The mean μTBS varied from 0 to 26.1 MPa, the latter being measured for the control adhesive composite combination. All specimens prepared using the self-adhesive composite cements Maxcem and Monocem failed during specimen processing. Most specimens failed at the dentin-cement interface, except the self-etch composite cement Panavia F2.0 that failed in 53% of the cases at the cement-ceramic interface and the control of which all specimens failed in the resin part of the microspecimens. Conclusion: The largely varying bonding effectiveness recorded for the different composite cements highlights the need for material specifications. Such specifications should also include a bond durability test as the specimens in the present study that were subjected to 6-month water storage. To lute ceramic restorations that allow light transmission to a sufficient degree, a conventional light-curable adhesive and composite should be considered.","PeriodicalId":17076,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","volume":"32 1","pages":"86 - 92"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin after 6-month water storage\",\"authors\":\"M. Sarr, B. Faye, Fatou Lèye-Benoist, K. Bane, A. Aidara, B. Touré\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/2321-4619.188231\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Purpose: To evaluate the bonding effectiveness to dentin of eight dual-cure composite cements after 6-month water storage. Materials and Methods: This study is a follow-up of a recent study that investigated the 1-week bonding effectiveness of feldspathic ceramic blocks luted to dentin using the same composite cements and experimental protocol. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different composite cements, including two etch-and-rinse cements (Calibra, Dentsply; Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent), two self-etch cements (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray; Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray), and four self-adhesive cements (Unicem, 3M ESPE; Maxcem, Kerr; Monocem, Shofu; G-Cem, GC), was measured using a standardized μTBS protocol after 6-month water storage. As control, a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) combined with a microhybrid restorative composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was used. Twenty-seven human third molars were used with specific preparation, and after 6-month water storage, microspecimens were prepared and subjected to a μTBS test. Results: The mean μTBS varied from 0 to 26.1 MPa, the latter being measured for the control adhesive composite combination. All specimens prepared using the self-adhesive composite cements Maxcem and Monocem failed during specimen processing. Most specimens failed at the dentin-cement interface, except the self-etch composite cement Panavia F2.0 that failed in 53% of the cases at the cement-ceramic interface and the control of which all specimens failed in the resin part of the microspecimens. Conclusion: The largely varying bonding effectiveness recorded for the different composite cements highlights the need for material specifications. Such specifications should also include a bond durability test as the specimens in the present study that were subjected to 6-month water storage. To lute ceramic restorations that allow light transmission to a sufficient degree, a conventional light-curable adhesive and composite should be considered.\",\"PeriodicalId\":17076,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Restorative Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"32 1\",\"pages\":\"86 - 92\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Restorative Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-4619.188231\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Restorative Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/2321-4619.188231","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

目的:评价8种双固化复合水泥在保水6个月后与牙本质的粘结效果。材料和方法:本研究是最近一项研究的后续研究,该研究使用相同的复合水泥和实验方案研究了长石陶瓷块与牙本质的1周粘接效果。不同复合胶结剂的微拉伸粘结强度(μTBS),包括两种蚀洗胶结剂(Calibra、Dentsply;Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent),两种自蚀刻水泥(Panavia F2.0, Kuraray;Clearfil美学水泥,Kuraray)和四种自粘水泥(Unicem, 3M ESPE;Maxcem克尔;Monocem Shofu;水储存6个月后,采用标准化μTBS方法测定G-Cem (GC)。作为对照,使用两步自蚀刻粘合剂(Clearfil SE, Kuraray)结合微杂交修复复合材料(Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray)。取27颗人第三磨牙进行特异性制备,水保存6个月后制备显微标本,进行μTBS试验。结果:平均μTBS范围为0 ~ 26.1 MPa,后者为对照胶粘剂复合组合。使用自粘复合水泥Maxcem和Monocem制备的所有试样在试样处理过程中均失效。除自蚀复合水泥Panavia F2.0在水泥-陶瓷界面有53%的失败率外,大多数试样在牙体-水泥界面失效,而在其控制下,所有试样都在微试件的树脂部分失效。结论:所记录的不同复合水泥的粘结效果差异很大,这突出了对材料规格的需求。这些规范还应包括粘结耐久性测试,如本研究中经受6个月水储存的试件。为了使陶瓷修复体能够充分透光,应考虑使用传统的光固化粘合剂和复合材料。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bonding effectiveness of contemporary composite cements to dentin after 6-month water storage
Purpose: To evaluate the bonding effectiveness to dentin of eight dual-cure composite cements after 6-month water storage. Materials and Methods: This study is a follow-up of a recent study that investigated the 1-week bonding effectiveness of feldspathic ceramic blocks luted to dentin using the same composite cements and experimental protocol. The microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of different composite cements, including two etch-and-rinse cements (Calibra, Dentsply; Variolink II, Ivoclar-Vivadent), two self-etch cements (Panavia F2.0, Kuraray; Clearfil Esthetic Cement, Kuraray), and four self-adhesive cements (Unicem, 3M ESPE; Maxcem, Kerr; Monocem, Shofu; G-Cem, GC), was measured using a standardized μTBS protocol after 6-month water storage. As control, a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE, Kuraray) combined with a microhybrid restorative composite (Clearfil AP-X, Kuraray) was used. Twenty-seven human third molars were used with specific preparation, and after 6-month water storage, microspecimens were prepared and subjected to a μTBS test. Results: The mean μTBS varied from 0 to 26.1 MPa, the latter being measured for the control adhesive composite combination. All specimens prepared using the self-adhesive composite cements Maxcem and Monocem failed during specimen processing. Most specimens failed at the dentin-cement interface, except the self-etch composite cement Panavia F2.0 that failed in 53% of the cases at the cement-ceramic interface and the control of which all specimens failed in the resin part of the microspecimens. Conclusion: The largely varying bonding effectiveness recorded for the different composite cements highlights the need for material specifications. Such specifications should also include a bond durability test as the specimens in the present study that were subjected to 6-month water storage. To lute ceramic restorations that allow light transmission to a sufficient degree, a conventional light-curable adhesive and composite should be considered.
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信