氟氢酸酸蚀及偶联剂的应用对烤瓷——树脂粘结强度的影响

目的：评价酸蚀及化学偶联剂对树脂—烤瓷粘结强度的影响。方法：烤瓷试件分７组用５％氟氢酸分别酸蚀０～１８０ｓ，然后一半使用偶联剂，另一半不使用偶联剂，与树脂粘结后测试剪切粘结强度。结果：无偶联剂组酸蚀后可使瓷—树脂粘结强度达到３０ＭＰａ（１５０ｓ），对照组为３ＭＰａ；单独使用偶联剂可使粘结强度达２５．２ＭＰａ，若结合酸蚀剂最高可达３４．３ＭＰａ，但酸蚀后使用偶联剂，酸蚀时间对粘结强度无明显影响；结论：瓷酸蚀是瓷粘结修复中重要的处理方法；偶联剂的使用有利于提高粘结强度，并可用较短的酸蚀时间获得理想的粘结强度。     

三种酸蚀剂联合偶联剂对Cerinate瓷与树脂粘结强度的影响

目的：评价三种陶瓷酸蚀剂联合偶联剂对Cerinate瓷与树脂粘结强度的影响。方法：将252个Cerinate瓷试件分为3组,每组84个试件,分别用自制A配方（含2.5%氢氟酸）﹑B配方（含6%氢氟酸）、C配方（含10%氢氟酸）陶瓷酸蚀剂处理0 s﹑30 s﹑60 s﹑90 s、120 s、150 s、180 s后,一半使用偶联剂,另一半不使用偶联剂,与树脂粘结后测试其粘结强度。结果：无偶联剂组酸蚀30 s后C配方的剪切强度为27.46 MPa,偶联剂组在酸蚀30 s后C配方剪切强度可达31.08 MPa,酸蚀时间对粘结强度无明显影响。结论：C配方配合偶联剂较短酸蚀时间内可获得较理想的粘结强度。     

铸钛的不同表面处理对钛-聚合瓷结合强度影响的实验研究

目的 研究铸钛的不同表面处理方法对钛-聚合瓷结合强度的影响。方法 将24个铸钛试件随机分为光 滑组、粗糙组、酸蚀光滑组和酸蚀粗糙组,每组6个。根据分组不同分别采用不同的表面处理方式,粗糙组进行喷 砂处理,酸蚀光滑组进行酸蚀处理,酸蚀粗糙组喷砂后进行酸蚀,光滑组表面不做处理。表面处理后的钛试件与 聚合瓷制备成钛-聚合瓷试件,测试其剪切结合强度,并在扫描电镜下观察钛表面形貌和剪切试验后钛与聚合瓷断 裂面的形貌。结果 光滑组、粗糙组、酸蚀光滑组和酸蚀粗糙组的剪切结合强度分别为（3.08±0.45）、（6.05±0.74）、（6.27±0.80）、（10.16±0.82）MPa。粗糙组、酸蚀光滑组和酸蚀粗糙组的剪切结合强度高于光滑组（P<0.01）,其中酸 蚀粗糙组的剪切结合强度最高,粗糙组和酸蚀光滑组间的剪切结合强度无统计学差异（P>0.05）。各组的钛表面形
貌和剪切试验后钛与聚合瓷断裂面的形貌均有一定的差异。结论 钛表面酸蚀处理和喷砂处理可提高钛-聚合瓷的剪切结合强度,喷砂后酸蚀处理是一种有效地提高钛-聚合瓷剪切结合强度的表面处理方法。     

不同酸蚀处理对IPS e.max(R) Press铸瓷与树脂水门汀粘结强度影响的研究

目的 研究5%和10%氢氟酸处理IPS e.max(R) Press铸瓷以及处理时间,对瓷与树脂水门汀粘结强度的影响.方法 制取标准瓷试件126个,根据酸蚀时间的不同分为7组,每组包括5%和10%浓度两个亚组(n=9),在表面处理后测定瓷与树脂水门汀的粘结强度;每组取2个试件进行扫描电镜观察.结果 5%氢氟酸酸蚀60s和10%氢氟酸酸蚀20s可获得最大粘结强度,分别为33.98±4.78MPa和32.90±4.74MPa,两者间无显著性差异(P>0.05).扫描电镜可见酸蚀时间与瓷表面微观形貌有直接关系.结论 氢氟酸浓度及处理时间对e.max(R) Press铸瓷与树脂粘结强度有显著影响,合理的控制酸蚀条件是非常必要的.     

不同表面处理方法对陶瓷托槽与不同瓷修复体粘结强度影响的研究

目的:评价不同瓷修复体试件经过3种表面处理方法后与陶瓷托槽粘结强度的关系。方法:钴铬烤瓷、铸瓷、锆瓷及聚合瓷4类试件经过喷砂(SB)、氢氟酸酸蚀(HFA)、喷砂+酸蚀(SB+HFA)处理后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂(SCA),再粘接陶瓷托槽,经37 ℃恒温水浴24 h 后检测粘接强度(SBS),扫描电镜观察托槽粘接前修复体表面的粗糙度及去除后修复体表面粘接剂残留情况。结果:钴铬烤瓷、铸瓷和聚合瓷试件的抗剪切强度分别与锆瓷试件比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);钴铬烤瓷和铸瓷试件的抗剪强度比较差异无统计学意义。扫描电镜结果显示4组试件表面粗糙度都有明显增加。而喷砂组和喷砂+酸蚀组试件表面的粗糙度明显高于酸蚀处理组;喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组的表面处理效果差异不大,喷砂组的4类试件表面粘结剂残留最少。结论:3种表面处理方法均能满足临床正畸的需求。喷砂组去除托槽后对试件表面的影响最小,喷砂联合酸蚀处理并不能显著增加剪切强度。 [关键词] 陶瓷托槽 剪切强度 瓷修复体 表面处理     

不同酸蚀处理对IPS e．max Press铸瓷与树脂水门汀粘结强度影响的研究

目的研究5％和10％氢氟酸处理IPS e．max Press铸瓷以及处理时间,对瓷与树脂水门汀粘结强度的影响。方法制取标准瓷试件126个,根据酸蚀时间的不同分为7组,每组包括5％和10％浓度两个亚组（n=9）,在表面处理后测定瓷与树脂水门汀的粘结强度;每组取2个试件进行扫描电镜观察。结果5％氢氟酸酸蚀60s和10％氢氟酸酸蚀20s可获得最大粘结强度,分别为33．98&#177;4．78MPa和32．90&#177;4．74MPa,两者间无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。扫描电镜可见酸蚀时间与瓷表面微观形貌有直接关系。结论氢氟酸浓度及处理时间对e．max Press铸瓷与树脂粘结强度有显著影响,合理的控制酸蚀条件是非常必要的。     

不同酸蚀处理时间对可切削二矽酸锂增强玻璃陶瓷粘接性能的影响

目的：研究不同酸蚀时间对可切削二矽酸锂增强玻璃陶瓷粘接强度的影响。方法将二矽酸锂增强玻璃陶瓷瓷块预烧结后切割成厚3．0mm,边长10．0mm的正方形瓷片,分别用9．5% HF酸蚀处理,按照酸蚀处理时间的不同分为A、B、C、D、E、F 6组,每组随机选择10块瓷片与树脂粘接形成粘接试件测量剪切粘接强度,并使用扫描电子显微镜观察酸蚀后瓷片断面的微观形貌。结果用单因素方差分析发现B组剪切粘接强度与其他五组相比差异有统计学意义。扫描电子显微镜观察发现,不同酸蚀时间处理后瓷表面微观形貌变化与粘接强度之间有较好的吻合性。结论9．5% HF酸蚀时间对二矽酸锂增强玻璃陶瓷的粘接强度有显著影响。二矽酸锂增强玻璃陶瓷经9．5% HF酸蚀30s可以获得最佳粘接强度。     

光固化复合树脂与金属基底的瓷剥脱面间的粘结强度

目的：测定光固化复合树脂与金属烤瓷修复体金属基底的瓷剥脱面间的粘结强度,评价有机硅烷偶联剂对粘结强度的影响。方法：钴铬合金的瓷剥脱面用氧化铝喷砂、氢氟酸蚀刻后分为6个组,每组一半使用偶联剂,一半不使用偶联剂,分别与6种光固化复合树脂粘结,粘结试件经过冷热水温差循环后测定剪切粘结强度。结果：有偶联剂组剪切粘结强度为10．16～15．54MPa,分别高于无偶联剂组剪切粘结强度(6．11～9．01MPa);其中两种光固化复合树脂的粘结强度高于其它四种树脂。结论：光同化复合树脂与金属基底的瓷剥脱面间可获得较高的粘结强度,金属基底的瓷剥脱面经有机硅烷偶联剂处理后有利于提高其与树脂间的粘结强度不同的树脂类型对二间的粘结强度有影响。     

三种陶瓷酸蚀剂对Cerinate瓷和树脂粘结强度的影响

目的 :比较三种陶瓷酸蚀剂及不同酸蚀时间对Cerinate瓷与树脂粘结强度的影响。方法 :将Cerinate瓷试件分为 4组 ,一组不使用酸蚀剂 ,其余三组分别使用自制A型 (含 2 .5 %氢氟酸 )、B型 (含 6%氢氟酸 )及C型(含 10 %氢氟酸 )陶瓷酸蚀剂 ,分别酸蚀 3 0s～ 180s ,每 3 0s为一间隔 ,与树脂粘结后测试剪切强度。结果 :C配方陶瓷酸蚀剂在 3 0s时粘结强度最大 ,达 2 7.64MPa ,相应瓷表面形态最适于粘结。结论 :C配方 (含 10 %氢氟酸 )陶瓷酸蚀剂具有较好的临床应用价值。     

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。     

两种酸蚀剂对Vita VMK68瓷与树脂粘结强度的影响

目的：观察用２．５％和５％氢氟酸处理ＶｉｔａＶＭＫ６８瓷不同时间对该瓷与树脂粘结强度的影响。     

氢氟酸蚀刻对Vita烤瓷贴面粘结抗剪强度的影响

目的　研究氢氟酸蚀刻对 Ｖｉｔａ 烤瓷贴面粘结抗剪强度的影响。方法　选择 ３０ 个氢氟酸（ Ｈ Ｆ）蚀刻瓷贴面的浓度—时间搭配点,模拟临床实际情况,作整体粘结抗剪强度测试和体视显微镜观察。结果　 Ｈ Ｆ酸各浓度—时间点蚀刻烤瓷后的剪切强度值均比对照组高。 Ｈ Ｆ酸浓度—时间的最佳搭配点为：２．５％ ５ｍ ｉｎ,５．０％ ２．５ｍ ｉｎ,７．５％ ,１５％ ５ｍ ｉｎ,１０％ ３０ｓ。烤瓷—树脂—牙釉质间的粘结破坏形式以混合破坏为主。结论　蚀刻可增加烤瓷与牙釉质间的粘结抗剪强度。     

不同硅烷偶联剂对瓷和树脂之间黏接强度的影响

目的：比较瓷表面不同酸蚀状态下，4种硅烷偶联剂对瓷和树脂之间黏接强度的影响。方法：将64个瓷试件按照所使用硅烷偶联剂的不同分为4组，每组包括磷酸和氢氟酸处理两个亚组。表面处理完成后将瓷试件与复合树脂黏接，测试剪切强度。结果：氢氟酸与两种双组分偶联剂相配合产生的黏接强度最高（p〈O．05），两种单组分偶联剂与氢氟酸配合使用的效果同两种双组分偶联剂与磷酸配合使用的效果没有显著差异如〉O．05）。结论：不同种类偶联剂对瓷和树脂之间的黏接强度有明显影响，选用合适的双组分硅烷偶联剂与磷酸处理相配合，足以产生满足临床要求的黏接强度。     

不同复合树脂对瓷和树脂黏结强度的影响

目的:比较不同光固化复合树脂对瓷和树脂黏结强度的影响。方法:将3种光固化复合树脂黏固于经过表面处理的瓷表面,制成黏结试件,进行剪切强度测试。结果:Charisma、Esthet-X、AP-X三种树脂与瓷之间产生的黏结强度分别为15. 46、36. 39、25. 72MPa。结论:AP-X树脂与瓷之间的黏结性能较好,但对操作技术较为敏感。     

脉冲Nd:YAG激光影响复合树脂修补烤瓷粘接强度实验研究

目的：评价激光进行瓷面处理对复合树脂修补烤瓷的粘接效果。方法：分别用８％氢氟酸及３组能量参数的脉冲Ｎｄ：ＹＡＧ激光（１５Ｈｚ、４０ｍＪ、０．６Ｗ;１５Ｈｚ、６０ｍＪ、０．９Ｗ;１５Ｈｚ、８０ｍＪ、１．２Ｗ）对烤瓷牙粘接表面进行照射,照射时间均为１ｍｉｎ,涂硅烷液及活化剂后,粘接复合树脂。应用电子万能试验机测试复合树脂－烤瓷的抗剪切粘接强度。采用扫描电镜观察瓷处理面的形貌特征。结果：激光０．６Ｗ组、０．９Ｗ组、１．２Ｗ组及酸蚀组的抗剪切粘接强度分别为８．６１、１４．０７、１１．２２及１３．４７ＭＰａ,激光０．６Ｗ组明显低于酸蚀组,两者具有统计学差异,而０．９Ｗ组及１．２Ｗ组与酸蚀组则无显著性差异。扫描电镜显示经激光处理的瓷面粗糙不平,呈浅凹状及火山口状结构。结论：在适当能量参数下,脉冲Ｎｄ：ＹＡＧ激光可代替酸蚀进     

瓷面处理对金属托槽与瓷面粘接性能的影响

目的　研究瓷表面不同处理方法对金属托槽与瓷修复体的粘接强度及去粘接后瓷面完整性的影响。方 法　根据使用粘接剂和表面处理方法的不同,将80个瓷面随机分为8组,每组10个瓷面。分别用京津釉质粘接剂 和光固化复合树脂粘接,表面处理分别行37%磷酸酸蚀、9·6%氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、瓷面涂硅烷偶联剂4种表面 处理法。试件粘接托槽后经37℃恒温水浴24 h后测定抗剪切强度,记录去粘接后的瓷面破裂情况。对磷酸酸蚀, 氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉的瓷面进行扫描电镜观察。结果　采用氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、硅烷偶联剂组的粘接抗剪切 强度明显高于磷酸酸蚀组(P<0·01)。打磨去釉后用光固化复合树脂粘接及氢氟酸酸蚀或瓷表面涂硅烷处理后使 用任意一种粘接材料粘接均取得有效的粘接强度。各组去粘接后的瓷破裂率无显著性差异(P>0·05)。结论　氢 氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、瓷面涂硅烷偶联剂均可以明显增加金属托槽与瓷面之间的粘接抗剪切强度。瓷面涂硅烷偶 联剂是金属托槽与瓷面粘接时良好的表面处理剂。     

Evaluation of 24-hour shear bond strength of resin composite to porcelain according to surface treatment

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present in vitro study was to examine shear bond strengths of resin composite to porcelain according to surface treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred eight feldspathic porcelain blocks were prepared. Specimens were divided into nine surface treatment groups: sandblasting with 50- or 110-microm Al2O3, acid etching with hydrofluoric acid, applying silane agent, and combinations of these treatments. Microhybrid resin composite was condensed and light cured for 40 seconds on the porcelain specimens, which were then stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours before mechanical testing. RESULTS: The bond strengths were significantly different according to one-way ANOVA. The lowest bond strength was observed in the silane group (4.09 MPa); the highest bond strengths were observed with acid etching + silane (11.97 MPa) and sandblasting with 50-microm Al2O3 + acid etching + silane (12.34 MPa) (no significant difference between groups). CONCLUSION: Acid etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel or sandblasting with 50- or 110-microm Al2O3 particles alone did not provide adequate bond strength. Silane agent was effective in increasing the shear bond strength of resin composite to porcelain after sandblasting or acid etching. Porcelain treatment with a combination of 50-microm Al2O3 air abrasion, 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, and silane agent provided higher bond strengths than treatment with any of these procedures alone.     

Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain

This study evaluated the effect of porcelain surface treatment on the shear bond strength of composite resin to various porcelains and porcelain combinations. A variety of feldspathic porcelains with low and medium alumina content were tested. Porcelain/composite resin samples were stored in 37 degrees C water, thermocycled 1,000 times, and tested in shear. A 3-minute etching using hydrofluoric acid significantly increased the bond strength of most of the feldspathic porcelains with low and medium alumina content. Silane application to all types of etched porcelain had no significant effect on bond strength.     

Effect of acid etching time and a self-etching adhesive on the shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain

PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of different acid etching times with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel and two adhesive systems on shear bond strengths of resin composite to porcelain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-eight 7 x 7 x 2 mm feldspathic porcelain blocks (VMK 95, Vita) were prepared. The specimens were divided into 7 groups: 1 control (no surface treatment) and 6 groups acid etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel for different etching times, including 30 s, 30+30 s, 60 s, 60+60 s, 120 s, and 180 s. Each of the etching time groups was divided into two bonding agent (Single Bond, AdheSE) subgroups (n = 7). Microhybrid composite (Filtek Z250) was condensed using a teflon mold and light polymerized for 20 s on the porcelain specimens. The prepared specimens were then stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 h before mechanical testing. Shear testing of all groups was performed on a universal testing machine (Lloyd LRX) at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The bond strength data were analyzed with two-way ANOVA. The means were compared using the Tukey HSD test (alpha = 0.05). RESULTS: Acid etching time and bonding agent statistically significantly influenced bond strength (p < 0.05). In the Single Bond group, the bond strengths between group 0 (10.48 MPa) and Group 30 (11.17 MPa) did not differ significantly, with these groups exhibiting the lowest bond strength values. The highest bond strength in Single Bond group was observed in group 120 (15.07 MPa) and group 60+60 (15.42 MPa), which did not differ significantly from each other. In the AdheSE group, the bond strengths of group 0 (9.33 MPa) and group 30 (9.49 MPa) did not differ significantly, and these groups exhibited the lowest bond strength values. The highest bond strengths in the AdheSE subgroup were observed in group 120 (14.84 MPa) and group 60+60 (14.96 MPa), which were not significantly different. Comparing the two different adhesive systems, Single Bond exhibited higher bond strength values than did the self-etching adhesive AdheSE. CONCLUSIONS: Acid etching of porcelain with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid gel for 120 s provided adequate bond strength for composite repair with a microhybrid composite. When a porcelain restoration is repaired with composite, Single Bond adhesive should be preferred to the AdheSE self-etching adhesive system.     

Shear strength of the composite bond to etched porcelain

The shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain was investigated to optimize variables for bonding porcelain laminate veneers. Scanning electron microscopy was initially used to examine the surface configuration of porcelain prepared under various conditions. A factorial experiment was undertaken to determine the effects of three different bonding methods on both etched and non-etched porcelain. Composite resin was bonded to the porcelain groups using (a) unfilled resin, (b) silane, and (c) silane with dentin adhesive. The results indicated a significant difference in shear bond strength for the three bonding groups, depending on the porcelain surface condition. For the unetched samples, significant differences in bond strength were obtained for all three bonding conditions. However, for the etched group, there were no differences between the silane and silane-with-dentin-adhesive groups. Porcelain etching significantly increased bond strength across all three bonding methods and was the main contributor to the obtained values.