作者: Paul Zaslansky , Uwe Blunck
DOI: 10.3290/J.JAD.A18445
关键词: Enamel paint 、 Bottle 、 Self etch 、 Dentistry 、 Bond Force 、 Clearfil SE Bond 、 Marginal (quality) 、 Adhesive 、 Molar 、 Materials 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.