目的:比较Clearfil SE Bond(SE)、AdperTM Easy One(EO)、Scotchbond Universal(SBU)3种自酸蚀粘接系统对乳牙釉质和牙本质粘接耐久性的影响,以及粘接界面轻度唾液污染后即刻吹干对粘接耐久性的影响。方法:将240个乳牙釉质及240个牙本...目的:比较Clearfil SE Bond(SE)、AdperTM Easy One(EO)、Scotchbond Universal(SBU)3种自酸蚀粘接系统对乳牙釉质和牙本质粘接耐久性的影响,以及粘接界面轻度唾液污染后即刻吹干对粘接耐久性的影响。方法:将240个乳牙釉质及240个牙本质样本随机分为16组(n=15个/组),实验组选用SE、EO、SBU等3种不同自酸蚀粘接系统,对照组选用AdperTM Single Bond Plus(SL)全酸蚀粘接系统,在无污染或有唾液污染、蒸馏水储存(水浴储存24 h)或水浴循环老化(5℃和55℃水浴中循环5000次)等两种不同储存条件下,测量每组中12个试样的剪切粘接强度,用扫描电子显微镜观察分析剩余3个试样的粘接界面情况。采用三因素方差分析法和Tukey检验对数据进行统计学分析。结果:对于乳牙牙釉质粘接,全酸蚀粘接剂的即刻剪切粘接强度(28.92±1.83)MPa和老化后剪切粘接强度(27.27±3.03)MPa均显著高于其他组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组有唾液污染时即刻剪切粘接强度(11.88±3.17)MPa或老化后剪切粘接强度(11.90±3.98)MPa均显著低于其无唾液污染时的即刻剪切粘接强度(19.57±3.89)MPa或老化后剪切粘接强度(19.01±5.03)MPa,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。对于乳牙牙本质的粘接,老化处理后全酸蚀粘接剂的剪切粘接强度(14.31±1.97)MPa显著低于其他粘接剂组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组有唾液污染时的即刻剪切粘接强度(12.99±2.66)MPa显著低于其无唾液污染时剪切粘接强度(18.63±3.61)MPa,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组的无/有污染状态下的剪切粘接强度[(14.41±2.68)MPa和(10.93±2.18)MPa]均显著低于SE组[(21.10±4.40)MPa和(19.56±3.64)MPa]和SBU组[(22.27±5.43)MPa和(20.60±5.11)MPa],差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:全酸蚀粘接剂对乳牙釉质粘接耐久性更佳;SE和SBU对乳牙牙本质有更好的粘接耐久性;粘接界面轻度唾液污染后即刻吹干处理可恢复SE和SBU的粘接强度,但对EO的展开更多
Bacterial infection associated with the use of medical or dental devices is a serious concern.Although devices made of ethylene vinyl acetate（EVA） are often used in the oral cavity,there are no established standards...Bacterial infection associated with the use of medical or dental devices is a serious concern.Although devices made of ethylene vinyl acetate（EVA） are often used in the oral cavity,there are no established standards for their storage.We investigated bacterial survival on EVA sheets under various storage conditions to establish a standard for hygienic storage of such dental devices.Bacterial counts were evaluated,which showed a significant decrease after washing with sterilized water,mechanical brushing and rinsing,and using Mouthguard Cleaner as compared to untreated samples.In addition,no bacteria were detected on samples stored 2 days or longer in a ventilated environment,whereas they were detected for up to 14 days on samples without any cleaning stored in a closed environment.Bacterial counts for the untreated samples gradually declined,while surviving bacteria on samples treated with sterilized water and mechanical brushing showed a rapid decrease.Additionally,bacterial identification using polymerase chain reaction（PCR） revealed that Streptococcus oralis was dominantly detected on salivary samples after 14 days of storage among both two subjects.For effective hygienic storage of dental devices made of EVA,washing with sterilized water is important to remove absorbed salivary compounds along with storage in a ventilated environment.展开更多
文摘目的:比较Clearfil SE Bond(SE)、AdperTM Easy One(EO)、Scotchbond Universal(SBU)3种自酸蚀粘接系统对乳牙釉质和牙本质粘接耐久性的影响,以及粘接界面轻度唾液污染后即刻吹干对粘接耐久性的影响。方法:将240个乳牙釉质及240个牙本质样本随机分为16组(n=15个/组),实验组选用SE、EO、SBU等3种不同自酸蚀粘接系统,对照组选用AdperTM Single Bond Plus(SL)全酸蚀粘接系统,在无污染或有唾液污染、蒸馏水储存(水浴储存24 h)或水浴循环老化(5℃和55℃水浴中循环5000次)等两种不同储存条件下,测量每组中12个试样的剪切粘接强度,用扫描电子显微镜观察分析剩余3个试样的粘接界面情况。采用三因素方差分析法和Tukey检验对数据进行统计学分析。结果:对于乳牙牙釉质粘接,全酸蚀粘接剂的即刻剪切粘接强度(28.92±1.83)MPa和老化后剪切粘接强度(27.27±3.03)MPa均显著高于其他组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组有唾液污染时即刻剪切粘接强度(11.88±3.17)MPa或老化后剪切粘接强度(11.90±3.98)MPa均显著低于其无唾液污染时的即刻剪切粘接强度(19.57±3.89)MPa或老化后剪切粘接强度(19.01±5.03)MPa,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。对于乳牙牙本质的粘接,老化处理后全酸蚀粘接剂的剪切粘接强度(14.31±1.97)MPa显著低于其他粘接剂组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组有唾液污染时的即刻剪切粘接强度(12.99±2.66)MPa显著低于其无唾液污染时剪切粘接强度(18.63±3.61)MPa,差异有统计学意义(P<0.01);EO组的无/有污染状态下的剪切粘接强度[(14.41±2.68)MPa和(10.93±2.18)MPa]均显著低于SE组[(21.10±4.40)MPa和(19.56±3.64)MPa]和SBU组[(22.27±5.43)MPa和(20.60±5.11)MPa],差异有统计学意义(P<0.01)。结论:全酸蚀粘接剂对乳牙釉质粘接耐久性更佳;SE和SBU对乳牙牙本质有更好的粘接耐久性;粘接界面轻度唾液污染后即刻吹干处理可恢复SE和SBU的粘接强度,但对EO的
文摘Bacterial infection associated with the use of medical or dental devices is a serious concern.Although devices made of ethylene vinyl acetate（EVA） are often used in the oral cavity,there are no established standards for their storage.We investigated bacterial survival on EVA sheets under various storage conditions to establish a standard for hygienic storage of such dental devices.Bacterial counts were evaluated,which showed a significant decrease after washing with sterilized water,mechanical brushing and rinsing,and using Mouthguard Cleaner as compared to untreated samples.In addition,no bacteria were detected on samples stored 2 days or longer in a ventilated environment,whereas they were detected for up to 14 days on samples without any cleaning stored in a closed environment.Bacterial counts for the untreated samples gradually declined,while surviving bacteria on samples treated with sterilized water and mechanical brushing showed a rapid decrease.Additionally,bacterial identification using polymerase chain reaction（PCR） revealed that Streptococcus oralis was dominantly detected on salivary samples after 14 days of storage among both two subjects.For effective hygienic storage of dental devices made of EVA,washing with sterilized water is important to remove absorbed salivary compounds along with storage in a ventilated environment.
