Binding af indirekte restaureringsmaterialer til dentin med forskellige typer retentionscementer
Introduktion – Såvel udbuddet af restaureringsmaterialer som udbuddet af retentionscementer stiger til stadighed. Indikationsområderne for de mange typer af materialer overlapper delvis, mens kompleksiteten i deres håndtering varierer meget. Formålet med denne in vitro-undersøgelse var at sammenligne forskellige typer retentionscementer, hvad angår deres evne til at binde forskellige, indirekte fremstillede restaureringsmaterialer til dentin. Materiale og metoder – Cylinderformede prøver blev fremstillet af seks restaureringsmaterialer (guld, titan, feldspatisk porcelæn, glaskeramik, zirkoniumdioxid og komposit plast). Cylindernes ene endeflade blev slebet og sandblæst. Herudover blev cylinderne af feldspatisk porcelæn og glaskeramik ætset med flussyre og silaniseret. Cylinderne blev cementeret til slebne, plane dentinoverflader med otte forskellige retentionscementer (en zinkfosfatcement (DeTrey Zinc), en konventionel glasionomercement (Fuji I), en plastmodificeret glasionomercement (Fuji Plus), en konventionel plastcement (Variolink II), to selvætsende plastcementer (Panavia F2.0 og Multilink) og to selvadhærerende plastcementer (RelyX Unicem Aplicap og Maxcem)). Styrken af bindingen mellem restaureringsmateriale og dentin blev målt efter opbevaring af prøvelegemerne (n = 8 pr. gruppe) i 37° varmt vand i en uge, og brudtypen blev undersøgt i stereomikroskop. Resultater – Bindingsstyrken afhang af såvel typen af restaureringmateriale som typen af retentionscement. Zinkfosfatcementen og de to glasionomercementer gav de laveste bindingsstyrker, mens de højeste bindingsstyrker blev opnået med de to selvætsende plastcementer og den ene af de to selvadhærerende plastcementer. Brudtypen afhang generelt af restaureringsmaterialet. Konklusion – Bindingsstyrken mellem restaureringsmateriale og dentin afhang i højere grad af retentionscementen end af restaureringsmaterialet.
Bonding of restorative materials to dentin with various luting agents
Introduction – The number of restorative materials as well as the number of luting agents on the market continue to increase. The indications of the materials tend to overlap and their handling varies widely. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare various types of luting agents when used to bond different indirect, laboratory restorative materials to dentin. Material and Methods – Cylinders of six restorative materials (gold alloy, titanium, feldspathic porcelain, glass ceramics, zirconia, and resin composite) were ground and air-abraded. Cylinders of feldspathic porcelain and glass ceramics were additionally etched with hydrofluoric acid and silane-treated. The cylinders were luted to ground, human dentin with eight luting agents (1 zinc phosphate cement (DeTrey Zinc), 1 conventional glass ionomer cement (Fuji I), 1 resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Plus), 1 conventional etch-and-rinse resin cement (Variolink II), 2 self-etch resin cements (Panavia F2.0 and Multilink), and 2 self-adhesive resin cements (RelyX Unicem Aplicap og Maxcem)). After water storage at 37° C for 1 week, the shear bond strength of the specimens (n = 8 per group) was measured and the fracture mode was examined stereo-microscopically. Results – Restorative material and luting agent both had a significant effect on bond strength. The zinc phosphate cement and the glass ionomer cements resulted in the lowest bond strengths, whereas the highest bond strengths were found with the two selfetch and one of the self-adhesive resin cements. Generally, the fracture mode varied considerably with the restorative material. Conclusions – The luting agents had a bigger influence on the strength of the bond between restorative materials and dentin than had the restorative material.
