Enamel Margin Integrity of Class I One-bottle All-in-one Adhesive-based Restorations

作者: Paul Zaslansky , Uwe Blunck

DOI: 10.3290/J.JAD.A18445

关键词: Enamel paintBottleSelf etchDentistryBond ForceClearfil SE BondMarginal (quality)AdhesiveMolarMaterials science

摘要: Purpose: To evaluate marginal adaptation of Class I restorations in enamel using contemporary one-bottle all-in-oneadhesives, stressed by thermocycling (TC) and mechanical loading (ML).Materials Methods: Ninety-six extracted human molars were prepared (standard cavities: 3 mm deep, 6mm wide mesio-distally, 4 bucco-lingually). Twelve adhesive systems used: OptiBond FL (OPT),Clearfil SE Bond (CSE) Adper Prompt L-Pop (PLP) as controls, compared with nine all-in-one adhesives– AdheSe One (AHO), Easy (EB), Force (BF), G-Bond (GB), iBond Self Etch (IB), Coat 7.0 (OC),OptiBond All-in-one (OPA), Clearfil Tri-S-Bond (TSB), Xeno V (XV). All teeth restored Filtek Z250 placed inthree (one horizontal, two oblique) increments. Enamel margins evaluated following 21 days water storage,after (2000 cycles: 5°C to 55°C), after (150,000 cycles, 50 N). After eachstep, replicas produced quantitative SEM margin analysis was performed (200X) defined criteria.Results: The median values % “continuous margin” TC ML, respectively, were: OPT(98.6/96.2),CSE(95.4/90.9), BF(81.7/68.1), GB(81.1/65.0), OPA(83.0/68.1), OC(64.1/41.3), TSB(59.3/42.2), EB(57.1/42.6),IB(38.4/27.6), PLP(36.6/21.5), XV(45.0/30.0), AHO(17.7/5.4). Statistical evaluation (Kruskal-Wallis test Bonfer-roni adjustment, p BF=OPA=GB>OC=EB=TSB=XV=IB=PLP>AHO.Conclusion: adhesives exhibited statistically significant lower qualities enamelcompared the etch-and-rinse system OPF two-step self-etching CSE. results obtained for GB,OPA BF, however, better than other adhesives.Keywords: quality evaluation, I, effectiveness, thermocycling, loading.

参考文章(17)
Moura Sk, Arlete Pelizzaro, Karen Dal Bianco, Mario Fernando De Goes, Loguercio Ad, Reis A, Rosa Helena Miranda Grande, Does the acidity of self-etching primers affect bond strength and surface morphology of enamel? Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. ,vol. 8, pp. 75- 83 ,(2006)
Placido E, Francci Ce, Cardoso Pe, Perdigão J, Microleakage of Class V resin-based composite restorations using five simplified adhesive systems. American Journal of Dentistry. ,vol. 12, pp. 291- 294 ,(1999)
Paul Zaslansky, Uwe Blunck, Effectiveness of all-in-one adhesive systems tested by thermocycling following short and long-term water storage Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. ,vol. 9, pp. 231- 240 ,(2007) , 10.3290/J.JAD.A12210
Robert L. Erickson, Wayne W. Barkmeier, Nicole S. Kimmes, Bond strength of self-etch adhesives to pre-etched enamel. Dental Materials. ,vol. 25, pp. 1187- 1194 ,(2009) , 10.1016/J.DENTAL.2009.04.004
N Kanemura, H Sano, J Tagami, Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces Journal of Dentistry. ,vol. 27, pp. 523- 530 ,(1999) , 10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00008-1
J PROENCA, M POLIDO, E OSORIO, M ERHARDT, F AGUILERA, F GARCIAGODOY, R OSORIO, M TOLEDANO, Dentin regional bond strength of self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems Dental Materials. ,vol. 23, pp. 1542- 1548 ,(2007) , 10.1016/J.DENTAL.2007.02.001
S. Semeraro, D. Mezzanzanica, D. Spreafico, M. Gagliani, D. Re, T. Tanaka, S. K. Sidhu, H. Sano, Effect of different bur grinding on the bond strength of self-etching adhesives Operative Dentistry. ,vol. 31, pp. 317- 323 ,(2006) , 10.2341/04-171
M PEUMANS, P KANUMILLI, J DEMUNCK, K VANLANDUYT, P LAMBRECHTS, B VANMEERBEEK, Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials. Dental Materials. ,vol. 21, pp. 864- 881 ,(2005) , 10.1016/J.DENTAL.2005.02.003
Paul Lambrechts, Marleen Peumans, Kirsten Van Landuyt, Jan De Munck, Bart Van Meerbeek, Five-year clinical effectiveness of a two-step self-etching adhesive. Journal of Adhesive Dentistry. ,vol. 9, pp. 7- 10 ,(2007)