不同表面处理方法在纳米混合树脂复合材料修复中的应用

目的： 分析不同表面处理方法和粘接剂自酸蚀功能单体对树脂-复合材料界面即时修复粘结强度和完整性的影响。方法： 采用纳米树脂复合材料制作98个树脂复合材料,随机分为A1、A2、B1、B2、C、D组,各14个试件。表面未处理的试件作为阳性对照组（14个试件）。A1组用Gluma 通用粘接剂系统抛光,A2组用Gluma 通用粘接剂系统抛光、喷砂,B1组用Tokuyama Bond ForceⅡ^TM粘结系统抛光,B2组用Tokuyama Bond ForceⅡ^TM抛光、喷砂,C组仅经抛光样品组。D组仅做喷砂。采用与底物相同的树脂复合材料,对修复后试件进行剪切粘结强度（shear bond strength,SBS）测试,所有样本均进行电子显微镜扫描、测定表面轮廓,进行失效分析。采用SPSS 20.0软件包对数据进行统计学处理。结果： D组修复粘结强度显著高于阴性对照组（P<0.05）,A1、A2、B2、B1组粘结强度显著高于C、D组（P<0.05）;B1、D或A1组相比,粘结强度无显著差异（P>0.05）;B2组、阳性对照组粘结强度无显著差异（P>0.05）。除喷砂、TBFⅡ外,阳性对照组粘合强度值显著高于A1、C组（P<0.05）。抛光后表面粘合失效率高于喷砂样本（P<0.05）;抛光、Gluma处理样品粘合失败率高于抛光、TBFⅡ处理样品（P<0.05）;喷砂、TBFⅡ处理的表面内聚破坏率高于抛光、TBFⅡ处理（P<0.05）。抛光技术的表面粗糙度与喷砂技术相比,较规则且粗糙度较低（P<0.05）。结论： 经喷砂处理的复合材料基材加TBFⅡ,其修复粘结性最强,且表面内聚破坏率较高,TBFⅡ处理粘合失败率低。但经喷砂处理后的材料易堆积食物残渣,而抛光后的材料则不易发生。使用喷砂处理的复合材料基材上加TBFⅡ的患者,需正确有效地维护口腔卫生。

Application of different surface treatment methods in teeth restoration with nano composite resin

PURPOSE: To investigate the effects of different surface treatments and adhesive self-etch functional monomers on the immediate repair bond strength and integrity of the repaired resin composite interface. METHODS: Ninety-eight resin composite blocks made of a nanohybrid resin composite were randomly divided into seven groups, each with 14 blocks, including positive control group: non-conditioned surface, Group A1: Gluma Comfort Bond, Group A2: Gluma Comfort Bond and sandblasting, Group B1: Tokuyama Bond Force II^TM adhesive system, Group B2: Tokuyama Bond Force II^TM adhesive system and sandblasting, Group C: polishing, and Group D: sandblasting. Resin composite identical to the substrate was applied and the repaired specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) testing. Representative samples from all groups received scanning electron microscopy and surface profilometry to determine their mode of failure. The data were processed with SPSS 20.0 software package. RESULTS: SBS of Group D was significantly higher than that of positive control group (P<0.05). SBS of Group A1, A2, B1 and B2 was significantly higher than that of Group C and D (P<0.05). Comparison of SBS among Group B1, D and A1 showed no significant difference(P>0.05). SBS between Group B2 and positive control group had no significant difference(P>0.05). Except specimens with sandblasting and the use of TBF II system, SBS of positive control group was significantly higher than that of Group A1 and C(P<0.05). The polished specimens had significantly more adhesive failures than those with sandblasted surfaces (P<0.05). Specimens treated with polishing and Gluma Comfort Bond showed significantly more adhesive failures than those treated with polishing and TBF II system (P<0.05). The sandblasted surfaces conditioned with TBF II showed significantly more cohesive failures than those treated with polishing and TBF II (P<0.05). The sandblasted specimens provided significantly more irregular and rougher surface finish than the polishing technique (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Sandblasting of the composite substrate and the use of TBF II adhesive system shows the highest repair bond strength, higher adhesive interfacial failures and fewer cohesive failures; however, it is noteworthy that the composite substrate types yield statistically higher food residue rate, which results in poor oral hygiene maintenance. Therefore, the application of this repair protocol should match up with correct oral health behaviors.