不同表面处理方法在纳米混合树脂复合材料口腔固定修复中对黏接强度、失效率及界面破坏情况的影响  

Application of different surface treatment methods in the repair of nano-hybrid resin composites

作　　者：杨伟湘 卢惠冰[1] 洪楠锐 YANG Wei-xiang;LU Hui-bing;HONG Nan-rui(Department of Stomatology,the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine,Guangzhou Guangdong 510400,China)

机构地区：[1]广州中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科,广东广州510400

出　　处：《临床和实验医学杂志》2022年第11期1214-1218,共5页Journal of Clinical and Experimental Medicine

基　　金：广东省中医药局科研项目(编号:20172047)。

摘　　要：目的探究不同表面处理方法在纳米混合树脂复合材料口腔固定修复中对黏接强度、失效率及界面破坏情况的影响。方法研究选取由纳米混合树脂组成的复合材料,将其切割为大小为25 mm×13 mm×4 mm的试件共91个,随机数字表法分为A1组(Gluma通用黏接剂系统抛光)、A2组(Gluma通用黏接剂系统抛光、磨砂)、B1组(TBFⅡ黏结系统抛光)、B2组(TBFⅡ抛光、喷砂)、C组(抛光样品)、D组(喷砂)与阳性对照组,各13个。测试树脂复合材料口腔固定修复后剪切黏结强度(SBS),分析其失效情况,采用电子显微镜对样本进行扫描,测定表面轮廓指标[包括轮廓算数平均偏差(Ra)、最大轮廓峰深度(Rp)、轮廓均方根偏差(Rp)及最大轮廓谷深度(Ru)]。结果与C组相比,D组修复黏结强度明显较高;与C组、D组相比,A1组、A2组、B1组、B2组黏结度较高,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);B1组与A1组黏结度比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);阳性对照组与B2组比较,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。A1组、B1组抛光后表面黏合失效率明显较D组高,抛光A1组黏合失败率高于C组及B1组,D组、B2组表面内聚破坏率高于C组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);C组与D组表面粗糙度,C组Ra、Rq、Rp更高,Rv低于D组,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论纳米混合树脂复合材料口腔固定修复采用抛光处理,与喷砂相比不易发生食物残渣堆积,与Gluma通用黏接剂相比,TBFⅡ修复黏结性更强,处理黏合失败率低、界面破坏率高。Objective To explore the effects of different surface treatment methods on the bonding strength,failure rate and interface damage in the nano-hybrid resin composite oral fixation repair.Methods The research selected the composite material composed of nano-mixed resin,cut it into 91 specimens with a size of 25 mm×13 mm×4 mm,and randomly divided them into A1 group(Gluma universal adhesive system polishing),Group A2(Gluma universal adhesive system polishing,sanding),B1 group(TBFⅡ bonding system polishing),B2 group(TBFⅡ polishing,sand blasting),C group(polished sample),D group(sand blasting),and the positive control group,13 each.Test the shear bond strength(SBS)of resin composites after oral fixation,analyze its failure situation,scan the samples with an electron microscope,and determine the surface profile indicators[including the arithmetic mean deviation of the profile(Ra),the maximum profile peak depth(Rp),contour root mean square deviation(Rp)and maximum contour valley depth(Ru)].Results Compared with group C,the repair bond strength of group D was significantly higher.Compared with group C and group D,group A1,group A2,group B1 and group B2 had higher bond strength,the difference in adhesion degree was statistically significant(P<0.05);there was no significant difference in the adhesion between group B1 and group A1(P>0.05);and there was no significant difference between the positive control group and group B2(P>0.05).The combined failure rate was higher than that of group C and group B1,and the surface cohesion failure rate of group D and group B2 was higher than that of group C,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05);Rq,Rp of group C were higher,Rv was lower than D group,the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Nano-hybrid resin composite oral fixation repair adopts polishing treatment,which is less prone to accumulation of food residues than sandblasting.Compared with Gluma general adhesive,TBFⅡrepair has stronger adhesion,lower adhesion failure rate and int

关 键 词：牙体修复 纳米混合树脂 复合材料 抛光 黏结 喷砂 黏接强度 失效率 界面破坏 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]