复合树脂联合两种酸蚀粘结剂与乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度比较

目的:比较复合树脂联合全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂与乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度。方法:收集新鲜拔除的滞留乳磨牙48个,随机分为4组,分别制备全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂的釉质和牙本质试件,电子万能试验机测定各组剪切强度;体视显微镜下观察试件断面的破坏模式;扫描电镜观察粘结界面情况。结果:全酸蚀粘结剂组的釉质剪切强度明显高于牙本质剪切强度(P<0.05);自酸蚀粘结剂组釉质与牙本质剪切粘结强度无统计学差异(P>0.05);全酸蚀粘结剂组的釉质、牙本质剪切粘结强度均明显高于自酸蚀粘结剂组(P<0.05);体视显微镜及扫描电镜观察均显示,全酸蚀粘结剂与釉质和牙本质的粘结界面结合程度好于自酸蚀粘结剂。结论:全酸蚀粘结剂处理对乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度高于自酸蚀粘结剂。     

唾液污染对粘结剂粘结强度影响的实验研究

目的:观察唾液污染对于三种不同粘结剂剪切强度的影响。方法:制备牙本质及铸瓷试件各90个,随机分成3组,分别用三种粘结剂(玻璃离子粘固粉、自粘接复合树脂粘结剂和自酸蚀树脂粘结剂)进行粘结处理,并按牙本质及铸瓷试件预备的粘结面进行粘结。3组各30个试件均设实验组和对照组。实验组24个试件分4个时间点模拟唾液污染,在粘结后即刻、3分钟、6分钟、10分钟浸入人工唾液,对照组(6个)不浸入人工唾液。24h后,用万能测力仪测试各组的剪切强度。结果:各组中通用自粘结复合树脂粘结剂和两步法自酸蚀树脂粘结剂的剪切强度显著高于玻璃离子粘固粉的剪切强度,3种粘结剂即刻组和3分钟组的剪切强度都下降,6分钟组和10分钟组剪切强度差别不明显,接近对照组。结论:唾液污染使3种粘结剂固化早期时的剪切强度均有所下降,其中唾液污染对玻璃离子粘固粉粘结剪切强度影响最大。     

树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀在托槽粘结中的应用

目的探讨两种树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀对托槽粘结强度的影响。方法收集离体人前磨牙60个,随机分成6组。第1组和第2组(对照组):35%磷酸酸蚀30 s,冲洗、吹干,涂粘结剂,采用光固化复合树脂粘结托槽。第3、4、5、6组:10%聚丙烯酸酸蚀30 s,冲洗,保持潮湿,第3组和第4组采用化学固化型的Fuji Ortho树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结托槽,第5组和第6组采用光固化型的Fuji Ortho LC树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结托槽。第1、3、5组进行抗剪强度测定,第24、、6组进行抗张强度测定,测试后观察断面形态。结果光固化复合树脂的抗剪强度高于其他2组,抗张强度各组间差异无显著性。各种材料的抗剪强度均高于抗张强度。在断面形态观察中,第1组与第3组、第5组差异有显著性,其余差异无显著性。结论两种树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀的抗剪强度低于复合树脂,但能满足临床的需要。     

树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂粘接正畸托槽的临床评价

目的评价树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂粘接正畸托槽的临床使用效果.方法随机选择30名患者,采用自身对照的方法,进行为期18个月的临床研究.231个托槽用树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂(resin modified glass ionomer cement,RMGIC)粘接,234个托槽用复合树脂粘接剂(composite resin,CR)粘接.观察脱落托槽所在的牙位、时间和脱落后粘接剂在牙面上的残留量.计算托槽脱落率和粘接材料残留指数.结果树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂粘接的托槽脱落率为23.4%;复合树脂粘接剂粘接的托槽脱落率为9.4%,两者差异有极显著的统计学意义(P＜0.001).不论使用玻璃离子粘固剂还是复合树脂粘接剂粘接托槽,第二前磨牙都是最容易出现托槽脱落的牙位.两种材料粘接的托槽脱落后,牙釉质上的粘接材料残留指数差异没有显著性的统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论与复合树脂粘接剂相比,树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的粘接强度尚不能满足正畸治疗的需要.     

酸蚀时间对树脂加强型玻璃离子粘结性能的影响

目的 比较光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀和复合树脂在几种粘结条件下，不同酸蚀时间后的粘结强度，探求减少釉质脱钙的粘结方法。方法 120颗因正畸拔除的健康双尖牙分成8组，酸蚀30秒或90秒后在几种条件下(干燥／被水或唾液潮湿)粘结脱槽，做冷热循环实验后，测剪切强度。结果 复合树脂酸蚀90秒较酸蚀30秒的粘接强度明显增强；光固化树脂玻璃在几种粘接条件下酸蚀90秒和酸蚀30秒粘接强度无明显区别，水潮湿组粘接强度最高。结论 复合树脂可通过延长酸蚀时间增加粘接强度；光固化树脂玻璃酸蚀30秒足够，延长酸蚀时闻不能增加粘接强度，白白造成釉质丢失。     

新型纳米羟基磷灰石复合树脂与牙本质的黏结性能评价

目的：检测新型纳米羟基磷灰石复合树脂与牙本质间的黏结强度,评价该材料对牙体组织的黏结性能。方法：健康离体磨牙36颗,随机分为3组,制作牙本质黏结面,分别黏结纳米羟基磷灰石复合树脂、复合树脂卡瑞斯玛、玻璃离子水门汀,经冷热交替试验后,测定各组试件的抗剪切力,计算剪切强度;体视显微镜下观察各组试件断裂界面断裂类型,采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：纳米羟基磷灰石复合树脂的剪切强度为(11.23±4.6082) N/mm2,复合树脂卡瑞斯玛的剪切强度为(14.49±7.9855) N/mm2,玻璃离子水门汀的剪切强度为(10.08±6.3701) N/mm2,3组之间的抗剪切强度无显著差异;试件的黏结面断裂类型绝大多数为界面断裂,3组之间差异无显著性(P>0.05)。结论：纳米羟基磷灰石复合树脂作为一种新型牙体修复性材料,与牙体组织之间具有良好的黏结性能,达到了临床应用的要求。     

用于正畸托槽粘接的玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度

目的　研究用于正畸托槽粘接的树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度。方法　 30颗离体前磨牙平均分为 2组。一组用树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂 (Advance)粘接方丝弓正畸托槽 ,另一组用复合树脂釉质粘接剂 (DM)粘接。 2 4h后用材料力学试验机检测两种材料的抗剪切强度 ,统计牙面上粘接材料的残留指数。结果　 2种粘接材料的抗剪切强度相似 [玻璃离子粘固剂为 (6 86 2±2 142 )MPa,复合树脂粘接剂为 (7 183± 3 2 0 5 )Mpa],差异无显著性。结论　体外研究中 ,树脂改良型玻璃离子粘固剂的抗剪切强度已达到复合树脂釉质粘接剂的水平 ,具有临床应用前景     

激光处理牙釉质,牙本质与复合树脂的粘结研究

对脉冲钕玻璃激光辐射离体牙釉质，牙本质进行表面扫描电镜观察及测定辐射面与光固化复合树脂间粘结强度。结果表明：激光处理牙轴质表面呈云絮状熔融，与复合树脂粘结强度高于对照组，有非常显著性差异（Ｐ〈０．０１），低于酸蚀组，有显著性差异（Ｐ〈０．０５），激光处理牙本质表面呈重叠蜂窝状熔融，与复合树脂粘结强度高于对照组，有非常显著性差异（Ｐ〈０．０１），与酸蚀组无显著性差异（Ｐ〉０．０５），激光处理牙釉质及     

不同剂型玻璃离子水门汀对牙本质粘结剪切强度的比较

目的:比较不同剂型玻璃离子水门汀对牙本质粘结剪切强度,为临床使用提供参考。方法:临床收集新鲜拔除的磨牙30个,用慢速精密齿科片切机切取颊面浅层牙本质薄片(片厚2 mm),自凝塑料包埋,仅暴露颊侧浅层面作为粘结面,流水冲洗4 s,无油气体吹干,于每个试件的粘结面上固定一直径4 mm,高2 mm成型管。然后将30个试件随机分为3组(每组10个),分别使用RelyXTM Luting Cement(粉液剂型)、GC Fuji PLUS(粉液剂型)和GC Fuji CEM(双糊剂型)3种玻璃离子水门汀进行充填,制作粘结试件后,试件置于盛有人工唾液的容器中37℃24 h,用万能测试机测定每个试件的粘结剪切强度。结果:3种玻璃离子水门汀的粘结剪切强度由底到高分别为:RelyXTM Luting Cement(粉液剂型)(6.163±1.177)MPa、GC Fuji PLUS(粉液剂型)(8.004±0.962)MPa、GC Fuji CEM(双糊剂型)(10.31±0.893)MPa,三者间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:双糊剂型玻璃离子水门汀抗粘结剪切强度明显高于两种粉液剂型玻璃离子水门汀,是临床修复治疗的良好选择。     

老年人根面龋光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子充填效果观察

目的：观察光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子充填老年人根面龋的临床效果。方法：100名根面龋老年患者采用自身左右半口对照,随机分为对照组和实验组,分别采用光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子及复合树脂充填,比较二者6个月及1年后的治疗效果。结果：根面龋充填6个月后,采用光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子充填的成功牙数及成功牙面均优于采用复合树脂侧,差异有显著性意义;根面龋充填1年后,采用光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子充填的成功牙数及成功牙面均优于采用复合树脂侧,差异有显著性意义。结论：光固化树脂改良型玻璃离子是治疗老年人根面龋的有效方法之一,值得推广和应用。     

树脂加强型玻璃离子粘固剂粘结强度的研究

目的 检测树脂加强型玻璃离子粘固剂的粘结强度,探讨影响粘结性能的相关因素.方法 30颗健康离体前磨牙分成两组,分别用京津釉质粘合剂和树脂加强型玻璃离子粘固剂初次、二次粘接托槽,测剪切强度及粘结剂残余指数.结果 树脂加强型玻璃离子粘固荆的粘结强度与临床普遍使用的京津釉质粘合剂的粘结强度相近,差异无显著性(P>O.05).结论 树脂加强型玻璃离子粘固剂可以替代复合树脂粘结剂.能够满足临床需要.     

光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀即刻剪切强度的测定

目的研究光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀黏结正畸托槽的即刻剪切强度。方法收集离体前磨牙30颗,随机均分为3组。第1组(对照组):35%磷酸酸蚀30 s,冲洗、干燥,涂黏结剂,京津釉质黏结剂黏结托槽。第2、3组:35%磷酸酸蚀30 s,冲洗,湿润,光固化型的Fuji Ortho Lc树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结托槽。第1、2组24 h后测剪切强度,第3组30 min内测剪切强度。托槽去除后统计牙面上的黏结剂残留量。结果第2组的剪切强度高于第3组,差异有显著性;第1、3组间剪切强度差异无显著性。结论光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀的即刻黏结强度能够满足临床要求,但24 h后的黏结强度显著增强。     

树脂修饰化玻璃离子托槽粘结剂粘结强度的体外研究

目的：评估一种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子托槽粘结剂在牙面不同处理方式和环境下的两次粘结后的剪切强度情况。方法：将新近拔除的105颗上颌第一前磨牙随机均分成7组,按照说明书的要求完成托槽的粘结。对照组牙面用37%的磷酸处理后,用光固化复合树脂粘结剂（3M,Transbond XT）粘结。其它6组牙面分别在37%的磷酸、GC处理剂（GC Self-Conditioner）、和不做任何处理的条件下,分别在干燥和湿润的环境下用树脂修饰化的玻璃离子（RMGIC;Fuji ORTHO LC,GC Corporation,Tokyo,Japan）粘结,所有牙齿均选用同种托槽。托槽粘结24 h后,在万能测力机下以1 mm/min的速度卸载,并记录下数值。除去牙面和托槽底面多余粘结剂后,重复上述过程。每次卸载后检查牙釉质损坏情况。结果：对照组两次剪切强度有较小的差异,其它GC玻璃离子粘结剂组两次剪切强度没有统计学意义。GC粘结剂不做任何处理组在干燥和湿润的环境下其剪切强度存在明显的差异。干燥环境下,37%的磷酸和GC处理剂处理后,GC粘结剂组两次卸载后的牙釉质均出现不同程度的釉裂或釉质脱落。结论：这种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子粘结剂可以在多种条件下用于托槽的粘结。     

Clinical evaluation of the bond between composite resin and etched glass ionomer cement

One hundred and thirty-eight non-undercut Class V abrasion lesions were restored using glass ionomer cement overlaid by composite resin. Four techniques were used: enamel and glass ionomer acid-etched, enamel only acid-etched, ionomer only acid-etched, and neither enamel nor glass ionomer acid-etched. The restorations were examined after six months, one year and two years and evaluated for integrity and marginal staining, the latter employing a direct clinical method and a set of photographic standards. The relative failure of restorations at six months was maintained at subsequent time intervals, and at two years the failure incidence was 10, 35, 43 and 58 per cent for the above four techniques respectively. Marginal staining was most evident around those restorations for which only the glass ionomer had been etched. The results indicate that the retention of composite to etched glass ionomer is similar to that of composite to dentine using many dentine bonding agents. The several advantages of glass ionomers over dentine bonding agents are discussed.     

The tensile strength of the union between various glass ionomer cements and various composite resins

Increasing use is being made of the glass ionomer cements as a lining for composite resin restorations, particularly when restoring posterior teeth. It has been suggested that it is possible to obtain a mechanical union between the two materials by etching the surface of the cement. This paper discusses the result of testing a broad variety of combinations of different glass ionomer cements and composite resins that have been reported on previously, and suggests that a number of factors need to be taken into account if the optimum physical properties are to be achieved from the union. There would appear to be four main factors which dictate the final strength of the union. The tensile strength of the cement itself is of primary importance and it seems the wettability of the resin bonding agent is also significant. When using some of the less heavily filled composite resins, the stresses set up by the setting contraction of the resin may be too great and, finally, the more heavily filled composite resins for restoration of posterior teeth often prove difficult to adapt to the underlying cement. With careful clinical handling, the so-called 'sandwich' technique is very useful. However, not all combinations of glass ionomer cement and composite resin will unite with sufficient strength to be successful clinically.     

Effect of using self-etching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets

Questions over the use of self-etching primers with composite resin adhesives in the bonding of orthodontic brackets remain unsolved. In addition, there are no previous reports on the efficacy of self-etching primers with resin-modified glass ionomer cements for bonding orthodontic brackets in orthodontic dentistry. The purpose of this study was to determine the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with one of four protocols: (1) a composite resin adhesive used with 40% phosphoric acid, (2) the same composite resin used with Megabond self-etching primer, (3) a resin-modified glass ionomer cement adhesive used with 10% polyacrylic acid enamel conditioner, and (4) the same resin-modified glass ionomer cement used with Megabond self-etching primer. The appearance of the tooth surfaces after acid etching or priming was observed with a field-emission scanning electron microscope (FE-SEM). When used with resin-modified glass ionomer cement, Megabond self-etching primer gave no significantly different shear bond strength compared with polyacrylic acid etching. But when used with composite resin adhesive, Megabond self-etching primer gave significantly lower shear bond strength than phosphoric acid etching. However, the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with composite resin adhesive after Megabond priming was almost the same as that of brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement after polyacrylic acid etching. FE-SEM observation revealed that Megabond self-etching primer produced less dissolution of enamel surface than did phosphoric acid and polyacrylic acid etching. Megabond self-etching primer may be a candidate for bonding orthodontic brackets using the resin-modified glass ionomer cement for minimizing the amount of enamel loss.     

An in vitro study of the bond strength of a glass ionomer cement in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets

The shear/peel bond strength of a 'no-mix' composite orthodontic bonding resin was compared in vitro with that of a glass ionomer cement. The effect of pre-treatment of the enamel, with either phosphoric acid or polyacrylic acid, prior to using the glass ionomer cement was also assessed. The composite resin had a significantly higher bond strength than the glass ionomer cement. Simple prophylaxis and drying of the enamel achieved the best results when using the glass ionomer cement, whilst etching the tooth surface with phosphoric acid produced a significantly poorer bond to the enamel. Investigation of the site of failure showed the composite resin bonded very well to the tooth and less well to the bracket, whilst the glass ionomer adhered significantly better to the bracket base than to the tooth surface.     

Evaluation of materials and techniques for restoration of erosion areas

The data indicate that the two dentin bonding agents, used in conjunction with enamel acid etching, provided a superior seal of the cavity compared to the respective resins alone or with either the dentin bond agent or acid etching used alone. The seal of resin restorations placed with the total system (acid etch and dentin bond agent) were comparable to the seal of the glass ionomer cement restorations. Compared with the 2-week specimens, there was no increase in leakage of the 6-month resin restorations when inserted with dentin bond agents and acid etch. The sealing ability of the resin restorations in conservatively prepared cavities was superior to comparable resin restorations in cavities that had not been prepared. This did not appear to be true for glass ionomer cement restorations. Data obtained to compare the bond strength of resins as used in the study with that of glass ionomer cements do not indicate a precise correlation between bond strength and sealing ability. The exact role of dentin bonding agents await further evaluation of their stability over a prolonged period of time, particularly in clinical investigations.     

粘接界面处理对玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂粘接强度的影响

目的 比较4种粘接剂对2种不同类型玻璃离子水门汀与复合树脂界面间粘接强度的影响.方法 选取传统型高强度玻璃离子FujiⅨ(F9)和树脂改良型玻璃离子FujiⅡLC(F2LC)为研究对象,将100个样本随机分为10组,每组10个样本,在样本中央制备窝洞后,随机选取5组样本,窝洞内置入F9,另外5组置入F2LC.样本界面分别采取不处理和4种不同类型的粘接剂,Clearfil SE Bond(SEB)、Clearfil S3 Bond(S3B)、Optibond Versa(OBV)及Single Bond 2(SB2)处理后,分别测定各组样本的剪切粘接强度.结果 OBV处理组的F9样本组获得最大的剪切粘结强度,未进行界面处理的F9样本组剪切粘结强度最小,其差异具有显著统计学意义.使用粘接剂处理后各组的粘接强度均显著增高.结论 粘接剂处理样本界面后显著提高玻璃离子与复合树脂间的粘接强度.自酸蚀粘接剂OBV使玻璃离子与复合树脂界面获得最大的粘接强度.