CAJ | 학술논문

目的评价光照模式和时间对牙本质树脂粘接剂硬度和微拉伸强度的影响,以期为临床提供参考.方法选取20颗人磨牙制成80个1 mm厚牙本质片,采用全酸蚀粘接剂和自酸蚀粘接剂涂布于牙本质表面,分别接受高光强模式(1250 mW/cm2)照射10、15、20 s和软启动模式照射20 s,测量24 h后粘接剂层的努氏硬度.选取40颗磨牙,暴露冠部牙本质,进行上述树脂粘接处理,分层充填光固化复合树脂,每组制备微拉伸试件15个,水储存1周后测量微拉伸强度,观察试件断裂模式.采用方差分析和LSD多重检验进行比较(α=0.05).结果全酸蚀粘接剂4种光照条件(高光强10、15、20 s和软启动20 s)的努氏硬度[(28.20 ±5.36)、(29.13±5.60)、(28.13±4.40)和(27.06±3.77) MPa]和微拉伸强度[(22.30 ±5.07)、(22.73 ±6.59)、(26.32 ±6.17)和(25.67 ±4.31) MPa]差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).自酸蚀粘接剂高光强20 s组努氏硬度[(28.23 ±3.67) MPa]显著高于高光强10s[(14.15 ±2.24) MPa]和15s组[(17.63 ±2.17) MPa] (P＜0.05),高光强20 s组的微拉伸强度[(42.52±3.59) MPa]亦显著高于高光强10 s[(24.21 ±3.60) MPa]、15 s[(22.25±4.16) MPa]和软启动20 s组[(31.12 ±5.40) MPa] (P＜0.05).在高光强20 s和软启动20 s照射条件下,两种粘接剂努氏硬度差异无统计学意义,但自酸蚀粘接剂的微拉伸强度显著高于全酸蚀粘接剂(P＜0.05).结论不同类型牙本质树脂粘接剂所需要的最佳高光强持续照射时间不同,本项研究所采用的软启动模式与持续高光强模式相比不具备优势.
목적 평개광조모식화시간대아본질수지점접제경도화미랍신강도적영향,이기위림상제공삼고.방법 선취20과인마아제성80개1 mm후아본질편,채용전산식점접제화자산식점접제도포우아본질표면,분별접수고광강모식(1250 mW/cm2)조사10、15、20 s화연계동모식조사20 s,측량24 h후점접제층적노씨경도.선취40과마아,폭로관부아본질,진행상술수지점접처리,분층충전광고화복합수지,매조제비미랍신시건15개,수저존1주후측량미랍신강도,관찰시건단렬모식.채용방차분석화LSD다중검험진행비교(α=0.05).결과 전산식점접제4충광조조건(고광강10、15、20 s화연계동20 s)적노씨경도[(28.20 ±5.36)、(29.13±5.60)、(28.13±4.40)화(27.06±3.77) MPa]화미랍신강도[(22.30 ±5.07)、(22.73 ±6.59)、(26.32 ±6.17)화(25.67 ±4.31) MPa]차이무통계학의의(P＞0.05).자산식점접제고광강20 s조노씨경도[(28.23 ±3.67) MPa]현저고우고광강10s[(14.15 ±2.24) MPa]화15s조[(17.63 ±2.17) MPa] (P＜0.05),고광강20 s조적미랍신강도[(42.52±3.59) MPa]역현저고우고광강10 s[(24.21 ±3.60) MPa]、15 s[(22.25±4.16) MPa]화연계동20 s조[(31.12 ±5.40) MPa] (P＜0.05).재고광강20 s화연계동20 s조사조건하,량충점접제노씨경도차이무통계학의의,단자산식점접제적미랍신강도현저고우전산식점접제(P＜0.05).결론 불동류형아본질수지점접제소수요적최가고광강지속조사시간불동,본항연구소채용적연계동모식여지속고광강모식상비불구비우세.
Objective To evaluated the effect of curing modes and light-cure times on knoop hardness(KH) and microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of dentin adhesives in vitro.Methods Twenty molars were made into 80 dentin slices (about 1 mm thick).The dentin slices were prepared with an etch & rinse adhesive A(ONE-STEP PLUS)and a self-etch adhesive B (Clearfil SE Bond),and light-cured respectively under fast mode,i.e.1250 mW/cm2 light intensity for 10 s,15 s,20 s,and ramp mode(soft start curing mode),i.e.initial 0 mW/cm2 gradually increasing to 1250 mW/cm2 in first 10 s,then steady for the next 10 s.The prepared dentin slices were kept in dark dry room for 24 h at 37 ℃,and KH were tested.The other 40 molars were flattened to expose coronal dentin,prepared with adhesives as above.Then the prepared teeth were restored with resin composites incrementally and cured under fast mode.The restored teeth were stored in water for 24 h at 37 ℃,and slowly sectioned to obtain multiple bonded beams.After 7 d water-storage,the samples received microtensile bond test,and the failure models of beams were observed under a stereomicroscope.Data were analyzed by ANOVA and LSD test (α =0.05).Results No statistical difference in KH [(28.20 ± 5.36),(29.13 ± 5.60),(28.13 ± 4.40),(27.06 ± 3.77) MPa] and μTBS [(22.30 ± 5.07),(22.73 ± 6.59),(26.32 ± 6.17),(25.67 ± 4.31) MPa] of adhesive A were found between four curing conditions(fast mode for 10 s,15 s,20 s and ramp mode for 20 s) (P ＞0.05).In adhesive B,KH of Fast 20 s [(28.23 ± 3.67) MPa] were significantly higher than those of Fast 10 s [(14.15 ± 2.24) MPa] and Fast 15 s [(17.63 ± 2.17) MPa] (P ＜ 0.05).The μTBS of Fast 20 s [(42.52 ± 3.59) MPa] were significantly higher than those of Fast 10 s [(24.21 ± 3.60) MPa],Fast 15 s [(22.25 ± 4.16) MPa] and Ramp 20 s[(31.12 ±5.40) MPa] (P ＜0.05).In Fast 20 s and Ramp 20 s modes,there were no statistical difference in KH of adhesive A and B,while μTBS of adhesive B were higher than that of adhesive A(P ＜ O.05).Conclusions As for different type dentin adhesives,the appropriate curing time in fast mode is different,and ramp mode (soft start curing mode) has no advantage over fast mode.