首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>The Open Dentistry Journal >Microleakage and Resin-to-Dentin Interface Morphology of Pre-Etching versus Self-Etching Adhesive Systems
【2h】

Microleakage and Resin-to-Dentin Interface Morphology of Pre-Etching versus Self-Etching Adhesive Systems

机译:预蚀刻与自蚀刻胶粘剂系统的微渗漏和树脂与牙本质的界面形态

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The purpose of this study was to compare the microleakage and tissue-adhesive interface morphology from Class V restorations using different systems of dentin adhesives. Class V cavities were prepared on buccal surfaces of 27 extracted caries-free molars and premolars. Teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) Prime & Bond NT, a 5th generation system using an initial step of total etch followed by a second step of application of a self bonding primer (2) Clearfil SE Bond, a 5th generation adhesive system employing two separate steps of self-etch priming and subsequent bonding (3) One-up Bond F, a 6th generation one step self-etching, self-priming and self-bonding adhesive. Microleakage and interface morphology of teeth restored with these adhesives and a composite resin were evaluated. Kruskal-Wallis Test (p = 0.05) was used to analyze the results. SEM analysis was used to relate interface morphology to microleakage. The mean and (SD) values of microleakage were: Prime and Bond NT: 0.15 (0.33), Clearfil SE Bond: 0.06 (0.17) and One-up Bond F: 2.96 (0.63). The mean microleakage for One-up Bond was significantly higher than for the other groups (p<0.05). Protruding tags in dentin channels were observed in Prime and Bond and Clearfil systems, but not in One-up Bond. The single step adhesive system, although more convenient for the clinician, uses a low viscosity formulation difficult to keep in place on cavity walls. It also tends to be too aggressive and hydrophilic to create an impermeable hybridized tissue-adhesive interfacial layer resistant to microleakage. Two-step adhesive systems, on the other hand, were retained on all segments of the cavosurface during application, and formed a hybridized interfacial layer resistant to microleakage.
机译:这项研究的目的是比较使用不同牙本质粘合剂系统的V类修复体的微渗漏和组织-粘合剂界面形态。在27个提取的无龋磨牙和前磨牙的颊面制备V级腔。牙齿被随机分配到以下三组之一:(1)Prime&Bond NT,第5代生成系统,使用总蚀刻的第一步,然后进行第二步应用自粘结底漆( 2)Clearfil SE Bond,第5代粘合系统,采用两个独立的步骤进行自蚀刻底漆和后续粘合(3)One-up Bond F,第6代粘合系统生成一步自蚀刻,自上底漆和自粘结胶。评价了用这些粘合剂和复合树脂修复的牙齿的微渗漏和界面形态。使用Kruskal-Wallis检验(p = 0.05)来分析结果。 SEM分析用于将界面形态与微渗漏联系起来。微渗漏的平均值和(SD)值分别为:主键和键合NT:0.15(0.33),Clearfil SE键合:0.06(0.17)和单键合F:2.96(0.63)。单键结合的平均微渗漏明显高于其他组(p <0.05)。在Prime,Bond和Clearfil系统中观察到牙本质通道中突出的标签,但在One-up Bond中未观察到。尽管对于临床医生来说更方便,但单步胶粘剂系统使用的是低粘度配方,难以在腔壁上固定。它还趋于过于侵蚀性和亲水性,以至于不能形成抗微渗漏的不可渗透的杂交的组织-粘合剂界面层。另一方面,在施涂过程中,两步粘合系统保留在腔表面的所有段上,并形成了一个耐微渗漏的杂交界面层。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

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