{"title":"硅酸盐三钙基水泥与不同修复材料的微剪切粘结强度。","authors":"E. Cengiz, N. Ulusoy","doi":"10.3290/j.jad.a35934","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"PURPOSE To evaluate the microshear bond strength of tri-calcium silicate-based materials to different restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-five disks of TheraCal LC and Biodentine were fabricated using teflon molds according to manufacturers' instructions. Then the specimens were randomly divided into 7 groups according to the materials applied: Fuji IX, Fuji II, Equia Fil, Vertise Flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative, Filtek Z250 with Prime&Bond NT and with Clearfil SE Bond. All restorative materials were placed onto the disks using tygon tubes. Following a storage period, the specimens underwent microshear bond strength testing in a universal testing machine, and fracture modes were analyzed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. RESULTS For all restorative materials, TheraCal LC showed significantly higher μSBS values compared to Biodentine. GIC based materials showed the lowest μSBS for TheraCal and Biodentine. For Biodentine, Filtek Z250 applied with Prime&Bond NT and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative applied with Scotchbond Universal Adhesive exhibited the highest μSBS, while Filtek Z250 applied with Clearfil SE Bond revealed the highest bond strength to TheraCal LC. CONCLUSION For all restorative materials tested in this study, TheraCal LC showed higher μSBS compared to Biodentine. For both TheraCal LC and Biodentine, the placement of GIC-based materials prior to composite resin restorations might decrease the bond strength. Composite resins applied with self-etching adhesives increased the bond strength of TheraCal LC; however, for Biodentine, application of etch-and-rinse adhesives may improve the adhesion of composite resins.","PeriodicalId":94234,"journal":{"name":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","volume":"42 1","pages":"231-7"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"30","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Microshear Bond Strength of Tri-Calcium Silicate-based Cements to Different Restorative Materials.\",\"authors\":\"E. Cengiz, N. Ulusoy\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.jad.a35934\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"PURPOSE To evaluate the microshear bond strength of tri-calcium silicate-based materials to different restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-five disks of TheraCal LC and Biodentine were fabricated using teflon molds according to manufacturers' instructions. Then the specimens were randomly divided into 7 groups according to the materials applied: Fuji IX, Fuji II, Equia Fil, Vertise Flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative, Filtek Z250 with Prime&Bond NT and with Clearfil SE Bond. All restorative materials were placed onto the disks using tygon tubes. Following a storage period, the specimens underwent microshear bond strength testing in a universal testing machine, and fracture modes were analyzed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. RESULTS For all restorative materials, TheraCal LC showed significantly higher μSBS values compared to Biodentine. GIC based materials showed the lowest μSBS for TheraCal and Biodentine. For Biodentine, Filtek Z250 applied with Prime&Bond NT and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative applied with Scotchbond Universal Adhesive exhibited the highest μSBS, while Filtek Z250 applied with Clearfil SE Bond revealed the highest bond strength to TheraCal LC. CONCLUSION For all restorative materials tested in this study, TheraCal LC showed higher μSBS compared to Biodentine. For both TheraCal LC and Biodentine, the placement of GIC-based materials prior to composite resin restorations might decrease the bond strength. Composite resins applied with self-etching adhesives increased the bond strength of TheraCal LC; however, for Biodentine, application of etch-and-rinse adhesives may improve the adhesion of composite resins.\",\"PeriodicalId\":94234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"volume\":\"42 1\",\"pages\":\"231-7\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"30\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The journal of adhesive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a35934\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The journal of adhesive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.jad.a35934","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 30
摘要
目的评价硅酸盐三钙基材料与不同修复材料的微剪切结合强度。材料与方法根据生产厂家的说明书,采用特氟龙模具制备了35片TheraCal LC和Biodentine。然后根据所用材料随机分为7组:Fuji IX、Fuji II、Equia Fil、Vertise Flow、Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative、Filtek Z250 with Prime&Bond NT和Clearfil SE Bond。所有的修复材料都用钛管放置在磁盘上。保存一段时间后,在万能试验机上进行微剪粘结强度测试,并分析断裂模式。数据分析采用单因素方差分析和Tukey事后检验。结果在所有修复材料中,TheraCal LC的μSBS值均显著高于Biodentine。GIC基材料对TheraCal和Biodentine的μSBS最低。对于Biodentine, Filtek Z250与Prime&Bond NT、Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative与Scotchbond Universal Adhesive的结合μSBS最高,而Filtek Z250与TheraCal LC的结合μSBS最高。结论在所有修复材料中,TheraCal LC的μSBS均高于Biodentine。对于TheraCal LC和Biodentine,在复合树脂修复体之前放置ic基材料可能会降低结合强度。复合树脂与自蚀刻胶粘剂的结合提高了TheraCal LC的结合强度;然而,对于Biodentine,应用蚀刻-漂洗粘合剂可以改善复合树脂的附着力。
Microshear Bond Strength of Tri-Calcium Silicate-based Cements to Different Restorative Materials.
PURPOSE To evaluate the microshear bond strength of tri-calcium silicate-based materials to different restorative materials. MATERIALS AND METHODS Thirty-five disks of TheraCal LC and Biodentine were fabricated using teflon molds according to manufacturers' instructions. Then the specimens were randomly divided into 7 groups according to the materials applied: Fuji IX, Fuji II, Equia Fil, Vertise Flow, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative, Filtek Z250 with Prime&Bond NT and with Clearfil SE Bond. All restorative materials were placed onto the disks using tygon tubes. Following a storage period, the specimens underwent microshear bond strength testing in a universal testing machine, and fracture modes were analyzed. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test. RESULTS For all restorative materials, TheraCal LC showed significantly higher μSBS values compared to Biodentine. GIC based materials showed the lowest μSBS for TheraCal and Biodentine. For Biodentine, Filtek Z250 applied with Prime&Bond NT and Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative applied with Scotchbond Universal Adhesive exhibited the highest μSBS, while Filtek Z250 applied with Clearfil SE Bond revealed the highest bond strength to TheraCal LC. CONCLUSION For all restorative materials tested in this study, TheraCal LC showed higher μSBS compared to Biodentine. For both TheraCal LC and Biodentine, the placement of GIC-based materials prior to composite resin restorations might decrease the bond strength. Composite resins applied with self-etching adhesives increased the bond strength of TheraCal LC; however, for Biodentine, application of etch-and-rinse adhesives may improve the adhesion of composite resins.