不同表面处理方法对纤维桩与树脂黏结强度的影响

目的： 比较5种不同表面处理方法对纤维桩黏结强度的影响。方法：50根纤维桩按照表面处理方法的不同,随机分为5组,A组为硅烷偶联剂组（Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator,Kuraray）,B组为硅烷偶联剂+黏结剂组（A+ Clearfil SE Bond,Kuraray）,C组为过氧化氢组（30%H₂O₂溶液）,D组为过氧化氢+硅烷偶联剂组（C+A）,E组为对照组。分别与树脂黏结剂黏结后,每组再平均分成2个小组,1组37℃生理盐水保存24 h后进行微拉伸强度测试,1组37℃生理盐水保存24 h后进行10000次冷热循环再进行微拉伸强度测试。采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果：冷热循环前A组~E组的微拉伸黏结强度分别为（6.7±0.7）、（14.4±1.1）、（10.7±0.9）、（16.0±1.0）和（6.7±1.0） MPa,冷热循环后,A组~E组的微拉伸黏结强度分别为（6.0±0.7 ）、（13.1±0.7）、（9.0±0.7）、（15.0±0.9 ） 和（5.6±0.7） MPa。除硅烷偶联剂组与对照组之间外,其余各组之间差异均有显著性（P<0.05）,其中,过氧化氢+硅烷偶联剂组黏结强度最大。各组之间在冷热循环前、后的微拉伸黏结强度差异均有显著性（P<0.05）。结论：温度疲劳循环可以降低5种表面处理的纤维桩与树脂间的黏结强度,30%H₂O₂溶液处理纤维桩后再使用硅烷偶联剂,可显著增加纤维桩与树脂之间的黏结强度。

Effect of different surface treatments on the bond strength of fiber posts to resin cement

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of five different surface treatments on the bond strength between fiber posts and resin cement. METHODS: Fifty fiber posts were randomly divided into 5 groups for different surface treatments. Group A was treated with silane coupling agent (Clearfil Porcelain Bond Activator,Kuraray); Group B was treated with silane coupling agent and then coated with dentin bonding agent (Clearfil SE Bond,Kuraray); Group C was immersed in 30%H₂O₂; Group D was immersed in 30%H₂O₂ and then treated with silane coupling agent; Group E received no surface treatment (control group). After bonding to resin cement, each group was then divided into 2 subgroups equally,while one group was stored in sodium chloride for 24 h at 37℃, and the other group was stored in sodium chloride for 24 h at 37℃ and then subjected to thermal cycling for 10000 times. Microtensile bond strengths were tested and the data was statistically analyzed using SPSS17.0 software package. RESULTS: The microtensile bond strength before thermal cycling was（6.7±0.7） MPa for group A,（14.4±1.1） MPa for group B,（10.7±0.9） MPa for group C,(16.0±1.0) MPa for group D and (6.7±1.0) MPa for group E. After thermal cycling, the microtensile bond strength was (6.7±0.7) MPa for group A, (13.1±0.7) MPa for group B, (9.0±0.7) MPa for group C, (15.0±0.9) MPa for group D and (5.6±0.7) MPa for group E. The results showed that surface treatments had significant impact on the bond strength (P<0.05). There was no significant difference between group A and group E. Group D had the highest bond strength compared with the other groups. Microtensile bond strengths were significantly different before and after thermalcycling treatment in each group (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Thermocycling treatment decreases the bond strength of fiber posts to resin cement with these 5 surface treatments. Coupled with 30%H₂O₂ solution and silanization, the bonding strength of fiber posts to resin cement can increase significantly.