...
首页> 外文期刊>The journal of adhesive dentistry >Microtensile dentin bond strength of self-etching and single-bottle adhesive systems in different cavity configurations.
【24h】

Microtensile dentin bond strength of self-etching and single-bottle adhesive systems in different cavity configurations.

机译:在不同的腔体结构中,自蚀刻和单瓶粘合剂系统的微牙本质粘合强度。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

PURPOSE: To evaluate the bond strength of a self-etching (Clearfil SE Bond) and a single-bottle (Excite) adhesive system using two cavity configurations (C-factors 5 and 1). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Class I cavities (3 x 4 x 2.5 mm) were prepared in 28 extracted human molars using diamond burs under water cooling. Teeth were divided into 4 groups: G1: Excite, C-factor 5; G2: Excite, C-factor 1; G3: Clearfil, C-factor 5; G4: Clearfil, C-factor 1. To determine C-factor 5, systems were applied to all cavity walls according to the manufacturers' instructions (5 bonded, 1 unbonded). For C-factor 1, lateral walls were isolated using nail varnish, and adhesive systems were only applied to the pulpal floor (5 unbonded, 1 bonded). Cavities were restored using Tetric Ceram composite resin (Ivoclar/Vivadent), and bulk light cured for 40 s (500 mW/cm2). Teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 h at 37 degrees C, and then sectioned using a diamond disk, yielding stick-shaped specimens with a bonded area of approximately 0.8 mm2. Specimens were submitted to the microtensile bond test at a rate of 1 mm/min speed in a universal testing machine. RESULTS: Resin-dentin bond strengths (MPa) were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (p < 0.05) [number of specimens]: G1 = 35.8b [43]; G2 = 48.9a [55]; G3 = 45.9a [60]; G4 = 49.0a [53]. There was no statistically significant difference between adhesive systems for C-factor 1. For C-factor 5, Clearfil SE Bond produced higher values when compared to the other group. Conclusion: Changes in C-factor only affected the total-etch adhesive system tested. This may be a result of the different filler volume in the self-etching system, and not of the bonding technique itself.
机译:目的:使用两个空腔配置(C系数5和1)评估自蚀刻(Clearfil SE Bond)和单瓶(Excite)粘合剂系统的粘合强度。材料与方法:在水冷条件下,使用金刚石钻在28颗提取的人类磨牙中制备I类腔(3 x 4 x 2.5毫米)。牙齿分为4组:G1:兴奋,C因子5; G1:刺激,C因子5; G1:刺激,C因子5。 G2:激发,C因子1; G3:Clearfil,C因子5; G4:Clearfil,C因子1。为确定C因子5,根据制造商的说明将系统应用于所有型腔壁(5个粘结的,1个未粘结的)。对于C因子1,使用指甲油隔离侧壁,并且仅将胶粘剂系统施加到纸浆地板上(5个未粘结,1个粘结)。使用Tetric Ceram复合树脂(Ivoclar / Vivadent)修复型腔,并将大块光固化40 s(500 mW / cm2)。将牙齿在37摄氏度的蒸馏水中保存24小时,然后使用金刚石盘切片,得到粘结面积约为0.8平方毫米的棒状样品。在万能试验机中以1mm / min的速度将样品进行微拉伸粘合试验。结果:树脂-牙本质结合强度(MPa)进行ANOVA和Tukey检验(p <0.05)[标本数量]:G1 = 35.8b [43]; G2 = 48.9a [55]; G3 = 45.9a [60]; G4 = 49.0a [53]。 C因子1的粘合剂体系之间在统计上没有显着差异。对于C因子5,与另一组相比,Clearfil SE Bond产生更高的值。结论:C因子的变化仅影响测试的总蚀刻胶粘剂系统。这可能是由于自蚀刻系统中填充剂体积的不同,而不是粘合技术本身的结果。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号