两种脱敏剂对牙本质粘接剂粘接强度的影响  

Effect of two different desensitizers on bond strength of dentin bonding agents

作　　者：杨云东[1] 肖慧娟[1] 段银玲[1] 黄翠[1] 王贻宁[2] 程祥荣[2] 

机构地区：[1]武汉大学口腔医学院修复科,430079 [2]武汉大学口腔生物医学工程教育部重点实验室,430079

出　　处：《中华口腔医学杂志》2008年第6期356-359,共4页Chinese Journal of Stomatology

基　　金：国家自然科学基金（30672346）

摘　　要：目的探讨两种脱敏剂对牙本质粘接剂粘接强度和微观形态的影响，以期对临床治疗有所指导。方法将30颗完整且无龋的人第三磨牙去除（牙合）面釉质，采用随机数字表法随机分为3组：C组（对照组）、U组（UltraEZ^TM处理）和M组（MI Paste处理）；每组10颗牙齿。C组不做处理，U组和M组分别使用相应脱敏剂对暴露的牙本质表面进行处理。3组样本牙再各随机分为两个小组，每小组5颗牙，分别用粘接剂A（Single Bond2）和B（Xeno Ⅲ）粘接，用复合树脂修复达4～5mm。用慢速锯将牙齿切成粘接面积为0.9mm×0．9mm的长方体试件，用微拉伸测试仪测试微拉伸强度，作为粘接强度，对其进行单因素方差分析。每组随机挑选3个试件对粘接界面进行扫描电镜观察。结果对于粘接剂A，U组粘接强度[（14．58±2．31）MPa]与C组[（15．82±2．18）MPa]的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），而M组粘接强度[（9．90±0．79）MPa]降低。对于粘接剂B，U组粘接强度[（10．55±1．06）MPa]与C组[（10．73±1．07）MPa]的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），而M组粘接强度[（8．74±0．87）MPa]降低。扫描电镜见各组混合层均较致密，M组两种粘接剂的树脂突较短且稀少。结论两种脱敏剂对粘接剂粘接强度的影响不同，U组脱敏剂对全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘接剂的粘接强度无明显影响，而M组脱敏剂可降低两种粘接剂的粘接强度。Objective To evaluate the bond strength of total-etch or self-etch dentin bonding agents after using two different dentin desensitizers on exposed dentin and investigate the bond interface by scanning electron microscope （SEM）. Methods Thirty intact and non-carious human third molars were used. The occlusal enamel was removed with the use of a slow-speed saw under water cooling. These teeth were divided into three groups using a table of random numbers with 10 teeth each. These three groups were treated with water（Group C）, UltraEZTM （Group U） and MI Paste （Group M） respectively. Then 10 teeth from each group were divided into A subgroup （ n = 5） bonded with Single Bond 2 adhesive system and B subgroup （n =5） bonded with Xeno Ⅲ adhesive system according to manufacturers＇ instructions. A block of composite resin was build up to 4～5mm. AB the teeth were sectioned occluso-gingivally to obtain bar-shaped specimens with bonded surface area about 0.9 mm × 0. 9 mm. The tension of the sample was tested by a microtensile tester at 1 mm/min. The mean values of bond strength were compared using one-way ANOVA. Three samples were chosen randomly from each of six groups for SEM investigation. Results There were no significant differences between Group U and Group C both in A and B subgroups. While there were significant differences between Group M and Group C in two bonding-agent subgroups. For SEM, the hybrid layer was thin and dense in six groups. Both total-etch and self-etch bonding systems could get fair resin tag infiltration in Group C and Group U. In Group M, the resin tags were relatively shorter and fewer than the anterior mentioned two groups. Conclusions UltraEZTM had no effect on bond strength of both kinds of dentin bonding agents, while MI paste could diminish bond strength.

关 键 词：牙本质黏结剂 显微镜检查 电子 扫描 脱敏剂 微拉伸强度 

分 类 号：R686[医药卫生—骨科学]