5种流体树脂与牙釉质粘接性能的对比研究

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2024.03.006

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的通过比较Beautifil Flow Plus F00、Filtek^TM Z350 XT、SDR、Tetric^® N-Flows、Constic 5种流体树脂与牙釉质的粘接性能,为流体树脂的临床选择提供参考。方法选择因正畸拔除的成人离体前磨牙50颗,将离体牙随机分为5组(n=10),分别为F00组、Z350组、SDR组、Tetric组、Constic组,每组之间互为平行对照组。每颗离体牙颊侧中1/3磨除厚度为0.5 mm牙釉质,以直径为3 mm的圆形形态作为粘接面,每种树脂制作直径和长度均为3 mm圆柱形树脂试件10个,与预备好的牙釉质面进行粘接,自凝树脂进行包埋。将试件进行3 000次冷热循环交替实验和37 ℃恒温水浴24 h实验后,进行剪切强度测试,记录数据;切断的粘接界面在扫描电镜下观察。结果 F00组的剪切强度为(18.39±2.93)MPa、Z350组的剪切强度(11.03±1.55)MPa、SDR组的剪切强度为(12.77±1.55)MPa、Tetric组的剪切强度为(15.25±1.88)MPa、Constic组的剪切强度为(12.79±2.78)MPa,对所得数据进行ANOVA检验和SNK检验后得出,F00组的剪切强度显著高于其他4组(Z350组、SDR组、Tetric组、Constic组)(P<0.05);Tetric组的剪切强度显著高于其余3组(Z350组、SDR组、Constic组)(P<0.05);Z350组、SDR组、Constic组3组之间的剪切强度没有显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论 5种流体树脂中Beautifil Flow Plus F00流体树脂粘接性能最高,Tetric^® N-Flow流体树脂次之,Filtek^TM Z350 XT、SDR、Constic这3种流体树脂粘接性能较低。

关键词: 流体树脂, 剪切强度, 粘接性能

Abstract:

Objective To provide reference for clinical selection of fluid resins by comparing the bonding properties of Beautifil Flow Plus F00, Filtek^TM Z350 XT, SDR, Tetric^® N-Flows and Constic with tooth enamel. Methods Fifty adult extrinsic premolars were selected for orthodontic extraction and randomly divided into five groups(n=10), namely F00 group, Z350 group, SDR group, Tetric group and Constic group, and each group was a parallel control group. One third of the cheek of each isolated tooth was removed by grinding the enamel with the thickness of 0.5 mm, and a circular shape with a diameter of 3 mm was used as the bonding surface. Ten cylindrical resin specimens with a diameter and length of 3 mm were prepared for bonding with the prepared tooth enamel surface, and self-coagulation resin was embedded. After 3 000 times of alternating cold and hot cycles and 24 h of constant temperature water bath at 37 ℃, the shear strength test was carried out; the data were recorded, and the cut bonding interface was observed under scanning electron microscope. Results The shear strength of group F00 was (18.39±2.93)MPa, and that of group Z350 was(11.03±1.55)MPa. The shear strength of, SDR group was (12.77±1.55)MPa;Tetric group was (15.25±1.88)MPa and Constic group was(12.79±2.78)MPa. ANOVA test and SNK test were performed on the obtained data. The shear strength of F00 group was significantly higher than that of Z350 group, SDR group, Tetric group and Constic group(P<0.05). The shear strength of Tetric group was significantly higher than that of Z350 group, SDR group and Constic group(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in shear strength among Z350 group, SDR group and Constic group(P>0.05). Conclusion Among the five fluid resins, Beautifil Flow Plus F00 fluid resin has the highest bonding performance, followed by Tetric^® N-Flow fluid resin, and Filtek^TM Z350 XT, SDR and Constic fluid resin have low bonding performance.

Key words: fluid resin, shear strength, bonding properties

中图分类号:

R781.1

郭欣欣, 苗振云, 荆雪, 马思雨, 李涛. 5种流体树脂与牙釉质粘接性能的对比研究[J]. 口腔医学, 2024, 44(3): 192-199.

GUO Xinxin, MIAO Zhenyun, JING Xue, MA Siyu, LI Tao. Comparative study on the bonding properties of five kinds of fluid resins to enamel[J]. Stomatology, 2024, 44(3): 192-199.

图/表 13

表1

图1

图2

图3

图4

图5

图6

图7

图8

图9

表2

图10

图11

参考文献 24

[1]	Mathur VP, Dhillon JK. Dental caries: A disease which needs attention[J]. Indian J Pediatr, 2018, 85(3):202-206. doi: 10.1007/s12098-017-2381-6 pmid: 28643162
[2]	Pitts NB, Twetman S, Fisher J, et al. Understanding dental caries as a non-communicable disease[J]. Br Dent J, 2021, 231(12):749-753. doi: 10.1038/s41415-021-3775-4
[3]	Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, et al. Depth of cure, flexural properties and volumetric shrinkage of low and high viscosity bulk-fill giomers and resin composites[J]. Dent Mater J, 2017, 36(2):205-213. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-131 pmid: 28154317
[4]	Al-Hasan RM, Al-Taee LA. Interfacial bond strength and morphology of sound andcaries-affected dentin surfaces bonded to two resin-modified glass ionomer cements[J]. Oper Dent, 2022, 47(4):E188-E196. doi: 10.2341/21-048-L pmid: 35917246
[5]	Nitta K, Nomoto R, Tsubota Y, et al. Characteristics of low polymerization shrinkage flowable resin composites in newly-developed cavity base materials for bulk filling technique[J]. Dent Mater J, 2017, 36(6):740-746. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-394 pmid: 28652556
[6]	Qin M, Liu HS. Clinical evaluation of a flowable resin composite and flowable compomer for preventive resin restorations[J]. Oper Dent, 2005, 30(5):580-587. pmid: 16268391
[7]	Nie J, Yap AU, Wang XY. Influence of shrinkage and viscosity of flowable composite liners on cervical microleakage of class Ⅱ restorations: A micro-CT analysis[J]. Oper Dent, 2018, 43(6):656-664. doi: 10.2341/17-091-L pmid: 30142038
[8]	Ozer F, Irmak O, Yakymiv O, et al. Three-year clinical performance of two giomer restorative materials in restorations[J]. Oper Dent, 2021, 46(1):E60-E67. doi: 10.2341/17-353-C pmid: 33882138
[9]	Ozer F, Patel R, Yip J, et al. Five-year clinical performance of two fluoride-releasing giomer resin materials in occlusal restorations[J]. J Esthet Restor Dent, 2022, 34(8):1213-1220. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12948 pmid: 35934807
[10]	Rusnac ME, Prodan D, Cuc S, et al. Water sorption and solubility of flowable giomers[J]. Materials, 2021, 14(9):2399. doi: 10.3390/ma14092399
[11]	Warangkulkasemkit S, Pumpaluk P. Comparison of physical properties of three commercial composite core build-up materials[J]. Dent Mater J, 2019, 38(2):177-181. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2018-038 pmid: 30381634
[12]	Gindri LD, Cassol IP, Fröhlich TT, et al. One-year clinical evaluation of class Ⅱ bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: A randomized clinical trial[J]. Braz Dent J, 2022, 33(6):110-120. doi: 10.1590/0103-6440202205069
[13]	Łagocka R, Jakubowska K, Chlubek D, et al. Elution study of unreacted TEGDMA from bulk-fill composite(SDR^TM Dentsply)using HPLC[J]. Adv Med Sci, 2015, 60(2):191-198. doi: 10.1016/j.advms.2015.02.003
[14]	Francis AV, Braxton AD, Ahmad W, et al. Cuspal flexure and extent of cure of a bulk-fill flowable base composite[J]. Oper Dent, 2015, 40(5):515-523. doi: 10.2341/14-235-L pmid: 25741908
[15]	Aboobaker S, Nair BG, Gopal R, et al. Effect of intra-orifice barriers on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: An ex-vivo study[J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2015, 9(2):ZC17-ZC20.
[16]	Rangappa A, Srinivasulu J, Rangaswamy V, et al. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of self-adhering flowable composites to the dentin prepared with different burs: An in vitro study[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2018, 21(6):618-621. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_71_18
[17]	Moecke SE, Silva AGCS, Andrade ACM, et al. Efficacy of S-PRG filler varnishes on enamel caries remineralization[J]. J Dent, 2022, 119: 104074. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2022.104074
[18]	Hatirli H, Yasa B, Yasa E. Microleakage and penetration depth of different fissure sealant materials after cyclic thermo-mechanic and brushing simulation[J]. Dent Mater J, 2018, 37(1):15-23. doi: 10.4012/dmj.2016-234 pmid: 28845033
[19]	Meshram P, Meshram V, Palve D, et al. Comparative evaluation of microleakage around Class V cavities restored with alkasite restorative material with and without bonding agent and flowable composite resin: An in vitro study[J]. Indian J Dent Res, 2019, 30(3):403-407. doi: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_767_17
[20]	Zakavi F, Mombeini M, Dibazar S, et al. Evaluation of shear bond strength of zirconia to composite resin using different adhesive systems[J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2019, 11(3):e257-e263.
[21]	Chai Y, Lin H, Zheng G, et al. Evaluation of the micro-shear bond strength of four adhesive systems to dentin with and without adhesive area limitation[J]. Biomed Mater Eng, 2015, 26(Suppl 1):S63-S72.
[22]	Braga RR, Meira JBC, Boaro LCC, et al. Adhesion to tooth structure: A critical review of macro test methods[J]. Dent Mater, 2010, 26(2):e38-e49.
[23]	Scherrer SS, Cesar PF, Swain MV. Directcomparison of the bond strength results of the different test methods: A critical literature review[J]. Dent Mater, 2010, 26(2):e78-e93.
[24]	Tahmasbi S, Badiee M, Modarresi M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to composite restorations using universal adhesive[J]. J Dent, 2019, 20(2):75-82. pmid: 31214633

实验分组	剪切强度/MPa
F00组	18.39±2.93^c
Z350组	11.03±1.55^a
SDR组	12.77±1.55^a
Tetric组	15.25±1.88^b
Constic组	12.79±2.78^a
F	16.581
P	<0.001