聚乳酸可吸收根管桩与3种粘接剂的粘接强度  

Bond strengths of absorbable polylactic acid root canal post with three different adhesives

作　　者：潘徽[1,2] 程灿[1] 胡嘉[1] 刘鹤[1] 孙志辉[3] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学口腔医学院.口腔医院儿童口腔科,北京100081 [2]北京大学第三医院口腔科,北京100191 [3]北京大学口腔医学院.口腔医院口腔材料研究室,北京100081

出　　处：《北京大学学报（医学版）》2015年第6期990-993,共4页Journal of Peking University:Health Sciences

摘　　要：目的:研究聚乳酸可吸收根管桩与3种粘接剂的粘接强度,寻找可用于聚乳酸可吸收根管桩的合适的可吸收粘接剂,为进一步的应用奠定基础。方法:使用聚乳酸根管桩修复离体牙,用不同的粘接剂进行聚乳酸根管桩的粘接。按使用的粘接剂分为3组:氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂组、纤维蛋白粘接剂组和玻璃离子水门汀组。将离体牙制成薄片试样并进行微推出试验,测试不同粘接剂的粘接强度,对结果进行方差分析。将经过测试的薄片试样,放置于显微镜下观察粘接破坏的方式,分为4种:桩-粘接剂界面破坏、牙本质-粘接剂界面破坏、粘接剂的破坏和可吸收桩的破坏。结果:测得氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂的粘接强度为(16.83±6.97)MPa,玻璃离子水门汀的粘接强度为(12.10±5.09)MPa,这两组的粘接强度均高于纤维蛋白粘接剂的粘接强度(1.17±0.50)MPa,P<0.001,差异有统计学意义,而氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂的粘接强度与玻璃离子水门汀的粘接强度的差异没有统计学意义,P值为0.156。观察粘接破坏的方式,在氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂组,桩-粘接剂界面破坏占25.0%,牙本质-粘接剂界面破坏占16.7%,粘接剂的破坏占33.3%,可吸收桩的破坏占25.0%;在纤维蛋白粘接剂组,桩-粘接剂界面破坏占66.7%,牙本质-粘接剂界面破坏占22.2%,粘接剂的破坏占11.1%;在玻璃离子水门汀组,桩-粘接剂界面破坏占87.5%,粘接剂的破坏占12.5%。纤维蛋白粘接剂和玻璃离子水门汀粘接剂,以桩-粘接剂界面破坏为主,而在氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂组,各种破坏方式的出现次数较为平均。结论:从粘接强度方面,纤维蛋白粘接剂的粘接强度低,难以满足临床使用的需求,氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂和玻璃离子水门汀的粘接强度可以满足临床需求;氰基丙烯酸酯粘接剂是可用于聚乳酸可吸收根管桩的较好的可吸收粘接剂。Objective： To find absorbable adhesives with suitable bonding properties for the absorbable polylactic acid root canal post. To test and compare the bond strengths of absorbable polylactic acid root canal post with three different adhesives. Methods： The absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts were used to restore the extracted teeth,using 3 different adhesives： cyanoacrylates,fibrin sealant and glass ionomer cement. The teeth were prepared into slices for micro-push-out test. The bond strength was statistically analyzed using ANOVA. The specimens were examined using microscope and the failure mode was divided into four categories： cohesive failure between absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts and adhesives,cohesive failure between dentin and adhesives,failure within the adhesives and failure within the absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts. Results： The bond strength of cyanoacrylates[（ 16. 83 ± 6. 97） MPa] and glass ionomer cement [（ 12. 10 ± 5. 09） MPa] were significantly higher than fibrin sealant [（ 1. 17 ± 0. 50） MPa ],P〈0. 001. There was no significant difference between cyanoacrylates and glass ionomer cement（ P = 0. 156）. In the group of cyanoacrylates,the cohesive failure between the absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts and the adhesives was 25. 0%,the cohesive failure between the dentin and the adhesives was 16. 7%,the failure within the adhesives was 33. 3%,and the failure within the absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts was 25. 0%. In the group of fibrin sealant,the cohesive failure between the absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts and the adhesives was66. 7%,the cohesive failure between the dentin and the adhesives was 22. 2%,the failure within the adhesives was 11. 1%. In the group of glass ionomer cement,the cohesive failure between the absorbable polylactic acid root canal posts and the adhesives was 87. 5%,the failure within the adhesives was 12. 5%.The major failure mode in fibrin sealant and glass ionomer cement was the cohesive

关 键 词：龋齿 聚乳酸 根管桩 粘接强度 

分 类 号：R788.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]