天津医药

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

基牙预备体表面粗糙度及水门汀配伍选择对粘接强度的影响

隋磊,章慧丰,余培   

  1. 天津医科大学口腔医学院口腔医院
  • 收稿日期:2013-07-23 修回日期:2013-08-13 出版日期:2014-01-15 发布日期:2014-01-15
  • 通讯作者: 隋磊

Influence of Surface Roughness of Tooth Preparation and Cement Compatibility on the Adhesive Strength

  • Received:2013-07-23 Revised:2013-08-13 Published:2014-01-15 Online:2014-01-15
  • Contact: Lei SUI

PDF (PC)

3019

摘要： 目的 研究固定修复中预备体表面粗糙度及不同水门汀材料对粘接强度的影响， 为临床备牙旋转器械及水门汀的选择提供参考依据。方法 制作牙本质试件60个， 随机均分为A、 B、 C 3组， 分别采用3种粒度 （125、60、 28 μm） 的金刚砂车针进行牙体预备。各组随机抽取2个预备体试件， 扫描电镜下行微观形貌观察； 剩余18个试件经表面粗糙度测量后均分为3个亚组， 分别采用聚羧酸锌水门汀 （ZP）， 玻璃离子水门汀 （GI）以及树脂改良型玻璃离子水门汀 （RMGI） 将钴铬合金金属铸件粘接于预备体表面， 测定剪切粘接强度， 并记录断裂的类型。结果 A、 B、C 3组试件表面粗糙度及粘接强度均依次降低； 3种水门汀材料中， RMGI粘接强度最高， ZP与GI粘接强度差异无统计学意义； 不同配伍亚组中， A-RMGI亚组粘接强度最高， B-RMGI亚组次之， C-ZP、 C-GI亚组最低； 表面粗糙度与水
门汀种类两因素之间不具有交互作用； A组断裂模式以Ⅰ、 Ⅱ型为主， B组各断裂模式分布较为均衡， 而C组以Ⅱ、 Ⅲ型断裂模式居多。结论 预备体表面粗糙度与粘接强度有关； 3种水门汀材料中RMGI粘接效果最好； 表面粗糙度与
水门汀种类间不存在配伍优选情况。

关键词: 表面粗糙度, 牙体预备, 水门汀, 粘接强度, 旋转器械

Abstract: Objective To investigate the influence of surface roughness of tooth preparation on adhesive strength of different dental cements; in turn provide some reference and recommendation on the selection of dental rotary instruments and dental cements. Methods 60 dentin samples were prepared and randomly divided into 3 groups. 3 groups of samples were grinded by diamond burs with different grit-sizes (125μm、60μm、28μm). 2 samples were randomly selected from each group and were observed under SEM for the surface microprofile. The rest 18 samples from each group were evenly divided into 3 subgroups. Each subgroup was teamed with one of 3 dental cements: zinc polycarboxylate cement (ZP), glass ionomer cement (GI) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI). Co-Cr alloy casts were cemented onto the dentin samples, and the adhesive strength was tested. Meanwhile, the type of failure was recorded for each sample. Statistical analysis was conducted with SPSS16.0 software. Results Both the surface roughness of tooth preparation and the type of dental cement have statistically significant influence on the adhesive strength. However, the interaction of the two factors was not significant. Samples grinded by 125μm-grit diamond burs had the highest adhesive strength, while the ones grinded by 28μm-grid diamond burs showed the lowest. Furthermore, RMGI exhibited the higher adhesive strength compared to ZP and GI. And there was no significant difference between ZP subgroup and GI subgroup. Conclusion Adhesive strength decreases in positive relation to surface roughness of tooth preparation. The rank of cements on adhesive efficiency is: RMGI>GI≈ZP. There is no obvious compatibility revealed between particular surface roughness and dental cements.

Key words: surface roughness, tooth preparation, cements, adhesive strength, rotary instruments