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

Abstract

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

CLC Number:

R781.1

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.

Figures/Tables 13

Tab.1

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Fig.7

Fig.8

Fig.9

Tab.2

Fig.10

Fig.11

References 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

树脂种类	实验分组	样本量/个
Beautifil Flow Plus F00	F00组	10
Filtek^TMZ350 XT	Z350组	10
SDR	SDR组	10
Tetric^?N-Flow	Tetric组	10
Constic	Constic组	10

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

Comparative study on the bonding properties of five kinds of fluid resins to enamel

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

Figures/Tables 13

References 24

Related Articles 15

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	CHEN Yong,WANG Yueyan,ZHANG Guangdong. Comparative study on the bonding strength between two universal adhesives and resin under different humidity and acid etching conditions [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(12): 1070-1075.
[2]	ZHANG Lunqi,WANG Kun,ZHANG Linglin. Research progress of propolis on prevention and treatment of caries [J]. Stomatology, 2023, 43(4): 371-375.
[3]	YUAN Wenjin, HAN Jiaqi, YANG Jie, DONG Ning, JIANG Qiu. Research progress of synthetic antimicrobial peptides in prevention and treatment of dental caries [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(12): 1129-1133.
[4]	SU Yikun, ZHU Bingzhen, WU Hanxue, LU Qianqian, WANG Jingyun. Research progress in diagnosis of caries with optical coherence tomography [J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(6): 562-566.
[5]	. Influence of naringin on remineralization of early enamel caries [J]. , 2021, 41(10): 883-887.
[6]	qiyu jin Shu LiDENG. Application of biomimetic biomolecular materials in the clinical treatment of StomatologyApplication of biomimetic biomolecular materials in remineralization of hard tissue of dental body [J]. , 2020, 40(11): 1037-1040.
[7]	. Research progress of mechanism of fungal caries [J]. , 2020, 40(10): 947-950.
[8]	. Effects of curcumin on acid production and acid tolerance of Streptococcus mutans [J]. , 2020, 40(8): 707-710.
[9]	. The practicability test of consistency between domestic caries active medium and standard caries active medium by acid production. [J]. , 2020, 40(7): 602-605.
[10]	. Research progress on prevention techniques for childrens caries [J]. , 2019, 39(9): 849-853.
[11]	. Effects of smear layer by different burs on the bonding strength of dentin and self-adhesive resin cement [J]. , 2019, 39(5): 423-426.
[12]	. Research status of atraumatic restorative treatment and dental caries restoration [J]. , 2018, 38(8): 765-768.
[13]	. Performance comparison of three-dimensional printed silk fibroin/polyvinyl alcohol/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffold and polyvinyl alcohol/nano-hydroxyapatite scaffold [J]. , 2018, 38(7): 592-596.
[14]	. Effects of TFs on caries’ development in rats [J]. , 2016, 36(11): 976-979.
[15]	. Resin infiltration in treating initial caries lesions: A systematic review [J]. , 2016, 36(9): 857-860.