3类修复体经3种瓷表面处理后与陶瓷托槽的粘结强度及去托槽后的瓷表面情况

目的研究3种瓷表面处理方法对3类修复体与陶瓷托槽粘结强度的影响以及去除托槽后瓷表面的情况。方法钴铬烤瓷、e-max铸瓷、二氧化锆全瓷3类修复体试件各36个,每类试件随机分为4组。除对照组为6个试件,其余各组每组10个试件。对照组不作任何处理。喷砂组,氧化铝喷砂4 s,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。磷酸组,质量分数37%磷酸酸蚀1 min,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。氢氟酸组,氢氟酸酸蚀2 min,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。使用光固化托槽粘结剂粘结陶瓷托槽。经37℃恒温水浴24 h后检测抗剪强度。观察托槽去除后瓷表面粘结剂残留情况和瓷面破损情况。结果 3种表面处理方法均能达到或超过有效粘结强度。采用喷砂并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法和氢氟酸酸蚀并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法,钴铬烤瓷试件的抗剪强度与e-max铸瓷和二氧化锆全瓷试件比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);磷酸酸蚀并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法中,3类修复体的抗剪强度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3类修复体在使用氢氟酸并硅烷偶联剂处理后,抗剪强度较其他2种方法高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。磷酸组的3类修复体瓷表面粘结剂残留指数得分最低,粘接剂残留最少,且瓷表面破坏最小。结论喷砂、磷酸酸蚀、氢氟酸酸蚀合并使用硅烷偶联剂处理钴铬烤瓷、e-max铸瓷、二氧化锆全瓷修复体,均能得到满意的粘结强度,而磷酸结合硅烷偶联剂方法去除托槽后对修复体表面的影响最小。

Effect of ceramic surface treatments on bonding strength and porcelain surface condition of ceramic brackets and 3 kinds of ceramic restorations

Objective To evaluate the effect of various ceramic surface treatments on the shear bond strength and the porcelain surface condition of ceramic brackets to various ceramic restorations. Methods Three types of ceramic test pieces, cobalt chromium ceramics, e-max cast porcelain, zirconium dioxide, were used in the test. Each were 36 and randomly divided into four groups ： （ 1 ） control group, without any treatment; （2） alumina blasting, four seconds, rinse d~＇ after surface coating of silane coupling agent ; （3） 75% phosphoric acid, 1 minute, rinse dry. surface coating of silane coupling agent; （4） 9.6% hydrofluoric acid etching, two minutes, rinse dry surface coating of silane coupling agent. In addition to the control group of six specimens, the rest groups contained ten specimens. Ivoclar light-cured bracket adhe- sive was used to bond 3M ceramic brackets. Detected bonding strength after 24 hours of constant temperature water bath of 37 ~C, and porcelain surface condition after the removal of the brackets. Results Three surface treatment methods were ~d~le to achieve or exceed the ~quired bonding strength. Using sand blasting and coating of the silane coupling meth- od and hydrofluoric acid etching and silane coupling agent coating method, the difference of shear strength between cobalt chromium ceramic and zirconia specimen was statistically significant （ P 〈 0.05 ）. The method of phosphoric acid and coated with silane coupling agent, the difference of shear strength among three groups of ceramic restorations was not sig- nificant （ P 〉 0.05 ）. The resulting shear strength of cobalt chromium ceramic, zirconia that using hydrofluoric acid and silane coupling agent treatment was statistically different with the other two methods. The ARI index of phosphoric acid etching and coating the silane coupling agent method scored lower than the other two methods. Conclusion The bonding strength of sandblasting, phosphoric acid, hydrofluoric acid etching combined with silane coupling agent to the three res- torations can be satisfied, and the impact of phosphoric acid combined silane coupling agent method on the prosthesis sur- face aesthetics was minimal.