CAJ | 학술논문

目的：比较两种软衬硅橡胶在热固化和室温固化条件下，其与聚甲基丙烯酸甲酯（PMMA）的粘接强度。方法水浴加热法制得50mm×10mm×3mmPMMA试片48片，并随机分成4组。以UfiGelP（UGP）为软衬材料，制作热固化组（A1组）和室温固化组（A2组）试件。以Silagum-Comfort（SLC）为软衬材料，制作热固化组（B1组）和室温固化组（B2组）试件。每组试件各6个。采用电子万能材料试验机对试件进行抗剪切强度测试，并在光学显微镜、扫描电子显微镜（SEM）下观察粘接界面、固化后软衬硅橡胶和打磨后PMMA的表面形态。结果 A1、A2、B1、B2组的抗剪切强度分别为（2.39±0.24）、（1.74±0.27）、（3.09±0.26）、（2.21±0.29）MPa。A1与A2、B1与B2、A1与B1、A2与B2组间的差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。光学显微镜和SEM下可见，固化后UGP体部有大量的气泡，SLC无气泡；PMMA表面较为粗糙；各组粘接界面均连续、均匀、密实，A2、B2组粘接界面有须状微突起物。结论 UGP、SLC与PMMA的抗剪切强度均达到了0.44MPa的临床最低使用标准；UGP与PMMA的抗剪切强度高于SLC与PMMA；热固化方式获得的抗剪切强度高于室温固化方式。
목적：비교량충연츤규상효재열고화화실온고화조건하，기여취갑기병희산갑지（PMMA）적점접강도。방법수욕가열법제득50mm×10mm×3mmPMMA시편48편，병수궤분성4조。이UfiGelP（UGP）위연츤재료，제작열고화조（A1조）화실온고화조（A2조）시건。이Silagum-Comfort（SLC）위연츤재료，제작열고화조（B1조）화실온고화조（B2조）시건。매조시건각6개。채용전자만능재료시험궤대시건진행항전절강도측시，병재광학현미경、소묘전자현미경（SEM）하관찰점접계면、고화후연츤규상효화타마후PMMA적표면형태。결과 A1、A2、B1、B2조적항전절강도분별위（2.39±0.24）、（1.74±0.27）、（3.09±0.26）、（2.21±0.29）MPa。A1여A2、B1여B2、A1여B1、A2여B2조간적차이균유통계학의의（P<0.05）。광학현미경화SEM하가견，고화후UGP체부유대량적기포，SLC무기포；PMMA표면교위조조；각조점접계면균련속、균균、밀실，A2、B2조점접계면유수상미돌기물。결론 UGP、SLC여PMMA적항전절강도균체도료0.44MPa적림상최저사용표준；UGP여PMMA적항전절강도고우SLC여PMMA；열고화방식획득적항전절강도고우실온고화방식。
Objective To compare shear bond strength (SBS) between two types of silicone soft liner and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA) under the condition of heat curing and room temperature curing. Methods A total of 48 PMMA specimens (50 mm×10 mm×3 mm) were made by water-bath heating method, and randomly divided into four groups. By using Ufi Gel P (UGP) as soft liner material, group A1 was prepared under heat curing, and group A2 was prepared under room temperature curing. To form the other two groups, Silagum-Comfort (SLC) as soft-liner material was used. Group B1 was prepared under heat curing, and group B2 was prepared under room temperature curing. Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested by using the electronic universal testing machine. The adhesives layer and surface of silastic and PMMA were observed by optical microscope and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Results The SBS of groups A1, A2, B1, B2 were (2.39± 0.24), (1.74±0.27), (3.09±0.26), and (2.21±0.29) MPa, respectively. Significant differences were found between A1 and A2, B1 and B2, A1 and B1, and A2 and B2 (P<0.05). Optical microscope showed numerous bubbles in the cured UGP, and no air bubbles in the SLC. The surface of PMMA was rough. SEM images showed that each group had continual consistent adhesive interface and a whisker hump on the adhesive layer of A2 and B2. Conclusion The SBS of UGP, SLC, and PMMA achieved minimum clinical standard of 0.44 MPa. The SBS of UGP and PMMA were higher than that of SLC and PMMA. The polymerization method of heat curing was higher than room temperature curing.