五种牙本质粘接剂对乳牙牙本质粘接性能的比较  

Comparison of bonding properties of five adhesives in primary dentin

作　　者：崔悦[1] 张祖太[1] 葛丽华[1] 丁宁[1] 杨东梅[1] 

机构地区：[1]首都医科大学口腔医学院儿童口腔科,100050

出　　处：《中华口腔医学杂志》2013年第6期338-342,共5页Chinese Journal of Stomatology

摘　　要：目的检测5种牙本质粘接剂对乳牙牙本质的粘接性能，为牙本质粘接剂的临床使用提供依据。方法按随机数表法将75颗因滞留拔除的乳磨牙分为5组，每组15颗。各标本磨除表面牙釉质，暴露的牙本质面分别根据不同粘接系统的说明进行酸蚀粘接，树脂充填。使用A（FL—Bond Ⅱ）、B（Clearfil Protect Bond）、C（Clearfil SE Bond）、D（Adper^TM Easy One）、E（Single Bond 2）粘接系统进行粘接（分别为A、B、C、D、E组），用微拉伸测试仪检测微拉伸强度。扫描电镜观察样本的断裂类型。结果各组的微拉伸强度分别为A组：（28．3±2．2）MPa，B组：（32．d±2．5）MPa，C组：（38．3±2．8）MPa，D组：（32．9±3．4）MPa，E组：（23．2±1．9）MPa，C组与A、E组差异有统计学意义（P〈0．01），C组与B组、D组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05），A组与E组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。扫描电镜观察显示各组的断裂类型均以混合断裂为主，各组间无明显差异。结论粘接剂B的粘接强度与粘接剂C和D相同，优于粘接剂E，可能更适用于乳牙的粘接。Objective To evaluate the microtensile bond strength （μTBS） of five dentin adhesives and their respective fracture modes. Methods The fiat dentine surfaces of 75 primary teeth were randomly divided into five groups, which was treated with FL-Bond Ⅱ （ group A ）, Clearfil Protect Bond （ group B ）, Clearfil SE Bond（ group C）, AdperTM Easy One（ group D）, and Single Bond 2（ group E） respectively. The μTBS was determined with microtensile tester and the fracture mode was observed by scanning electron microscope （ SEM ）. Results The mean μTBS for group A, B, C, D and E was （ 28.3 ± 2. 2 ） , （ 32.4 ± 2. 5 ） , （38.3 ± 2. 8）, （32.9 ± 3.4） and （23.2 ± 1.9） MPa respectively. There was significant difference between group C and group A, E （ P 〈 0. 01 ）, and no significant difference between group C and group B, D. There was no significant difference between group A and group E （ P 〉 0. 05 ）. The SEM indicated that there was no significant difference in the fracture mode. Conclusions The bonding property of Clearfil Protect Bond is equivalent to Clearfil SE Bond and AdperTM Easy One, superior to Single Bond 2 and more suitable for primary dentin bonding.

关 键 词：牙科粘固剂 拉伸强度 乳牙牙本质 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]