不同表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷修复体黏结强度影响的研究
|
摘要
目前正畸治疗患者中成人占的比例越来越多,相对于青少年患者来说,正畸医生经常需要在已做过陶瓷修复体表面黏结托槽的情况。区别于传统的牙釉质表面酸蚀,为使托槽与瓷面获得足够的粘接强度来保证临床治疗,因此需要采取一些针对瓷修复体的黏结前表面处理措施,如氢氟酸酸蚀、喷砂、和联合硅烷偶联剂表面处理等。而目前瓷修复体的制作材料也存在一些差异性,如硅酸盐类陶瓷、氧化铝类陶瓷和氧化锆类陶瓷等是目前临床瓷修复体常用的三种材料那么,当不同的表面处理方法作用于不同材料制作的瓷修复体上时,是否对其与金属托槽的黏结强度带来不同的影响呢?这个重要的问题直接关系到针对不同材料的瓷修复体如何选择适当的表面处理方法的问题。本研究就是从以下两个方面进行关于这个问题的研究的。
一.不同表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷修复体黏结强度影响的研究
1.研究目的
酸蚀、喷砂、酸蚀+喷砂联合处理,是目前临床上黏结托槽前对瓷修复体表面较为常用的三种处理方法,本研究的目的在于分析上述三种不同的表面处理方法作用于上述三种不同材料制作的修复体,是否会对其与托槽的黏结强度产生不同的影响,从而为临床中针对不同的瓷修复体选择合适的表面处理方法提供参考依据。
2.研究方法
分别以VMK@95 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@7 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@9 A2体瓷粉制作试件各24个。每种材料制作的试件各分为以下三个不同的处理组:(1)酸蚀处理组;(2)喷砂处理组;(3)酸蚀+喷砂处理组进行表面处理后黏结金属托槽,测量计算每个试件的托槽黏结剪切强度,比较同一种表面处理方法作用于不同的瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性;比较不同的表面处理方法作用于同一种瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性。然后,通过电镜扫描观察,分析比较不同表面处理方法对瓷修复体表面处理效果的差异性。
3.研究结果
(1)方差分析结果显示,喷砂,酸蚀,喷砂+酸蚀三种表面处理方法对同一种陶瓷材料与托槽黏结的抗剪切强度有显著性影响。相比喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组,酸蚀组显示了最小的抗剪切强度(P<0.05),且低于正畸临床黏结强度的要求;而喷砂组和喷砂+酸蚀组则无统计学差异(P>0.05),且一般都能达到正畸临床黏结强度的要求。同一种表面处理方法对三种陶瓷不同材料制作的试件进行表面处理后,对其与托槽粘接的抗剪切强度无统计学差异(P>0.05)。三种陶瓷材料与三种处理方法间无交互作用(P>0.05)。(2)电镜扫面观察结果显示,无论对于哪一种材料的陶瓷试件,经三种不同的表面处理方法后,相对于没有经过处理的表面,都有增加其表面粗糙性、增加其表面孔隙率的作用。而喷砂及喷砂+酸蚀组处理后试件表面的粗糙度和表面孔隙率要高于酸蚀处理组;喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组的表面处理效果则比较相近。
4.结论
陶瓷修复体所用材料的不同,不对其与金属托槽的黏结强度构成影响;从提高托槽的黏结强度的角度来看,相对于酸蚀处理方法,喷砂处理是一种要优先选择的表面处理方法;而在应用喷砂处理方法后,再辅助进行酸蚀处理的做法,并不能起到进一步增加托槽黏结强度的效果,这也就提示我们在临床操作中用酸蚀辅助喷砂处理是不必要的。
二.联合偶联剂表面处理对金属托槽与不同瓷修体黏结强度影响的研究
1.研究目的
探讨不同的表面处理方法联合硅烷偶联剂进行瓷修复体表面处理,对不同陶瓷材料与托槽间黏结强度的影响是否会有差异性。
2.研究方法
分别以VMK@95 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@7 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@9 A2体瓷粉制作试件各24个。每种材料制作的试件各分为以下四个不同的处理组:(1)酸蚀处理组,(2)喷砂处理组,(3)喷砂+偶联处理组,(4)酸蚀+偶联处理组,进行表面处理后在试件上黏结金属托槽,测量计算每个试件的托槽黏结剪切强度,比较同一种表面处理方法作用于不同的瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性;比较不同的表面处理方法作用于同一种瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度影响的差异性。
3.研究结果
(1)方差分析结果显示,硅烷偶联剂作为一种辅助的表面处理措施,无论对于喷砂还是酸蚀处理来说,都能显著地提高托槽与瓷修复体表面的黏结强度(P <0.05)。而这种经偶联剂辅助处理后黏结强度提高的特点,是不因为瓷修复体的材料的不同而有显著的差异性的(P>0.05)。
(2)酸蚀处理不同于喷砂处理,单独进行时一般达不到正畸临床托槽黏结强度要求,而辅助硅烷偶联剂处理后,黏结强度得到的很大的提高(P <0.05)。
4.结论
本研究的结果提示硅烷偶联剂作为一种辅助处理措施,可以提高喷砂或酸蚀处理后托槽与瓷修复体表面的黏结强度;联合硅烷偶联剂处理,可使单独应用达不到临床托槽黏结要求的酸蚀表面处理方法,达到临床应用要求。
.结合上述两部分研究结果进行分析,本研究可以得出如下结论:
1.对于不同的表面处理方法来说,陶瓷修复体所用材料的不同,均不对其与金属托槽的黏结强度构成影响;
2.对于不同的瓷修复体来说,如果选用表面粗化处理方法进行托槽黏
结前的表面处理,喷砂处理可以使其与托槽的黏结强度达到临床治疗要求;酸蚀处理则不能使其与托槽的黏结强度达到临床治疗要求;在喷砂处理时辅助酸蚀处理,不能起到明显提高黏结强度的作用。这些结果提示,对于瓷修复体来说,喷砂处理是一种要优先选择的表面处理方法;对于喷砂处理,辅助酸蚀处理没有必要的。
3.对于不同的瓷修复体来说,无论对于喷砂处理还是酸蚀处理,联合
硅烷偶联剂进行表面处理,都能起到显著提高黏结强度的效果,可使原本达不到临床黏结要求的酸蚀处理方法达到临床应用要求。这一结果提示,对于酸蚀处理来说,有必要辅助硅烷偶联剂进行表面处理;而对于喷砂处理来说,因其单独应用已能使托槽的黏结强度达到临床应用要求,因此在对黏结强度没有特殊需求的情况下,没有辅助硅烷偶联剂处理的必要。
With more adults seeking orthodontic treatment, orthodontists must often bond attachments to teeth with ceramic restoration. In such situations, the bond strength of brackets to the ceramic is not enough for the orthodontic treatment if the surface preparation is the same as the way for the bonding bracket to the enamel. Therefore, some special preparations for the bonding between bracket and ceramic are needed, such as etching with hydrofluoric acid(HF), sandblasting the ceramic surface(SB), combination with silane coupling agent(CP). At the present time, the ceramic restorations may be made by different material. Whether could the differences of ceramic restoration materials under different preparations result in the differences of the bond strength? It is very important for the preparation method choice in clinic. This study is focused on the research at this area, and is done from two aspects as follows.
1. The effects of various surface preparation methods on the shear bond strength of mental brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces
1.1 Objectives: HF, SB and SB+HF are the usual surface preparations for the brackets to be bonded to the porcelain restorations. Silica -based ceramic, Aluminum-oxide ceramic and Zirconium-oxide ceramic are the usual porcelain restoration materials at the present time. The study is aimed to investigate whether the effects of the preparations on the porcelain restorations made by different materials are different. The study is useful for the choice of preparation method according to the porcelain restoration materials in the clinic work.
1.2 Methods:3 kinds of porcelain restoration materials (VITA VMK@95, VITA VM@7,VITA VM@9) were sampled and produced into specimens. Every kind of material specimens were divided into 3 groups according the preparation method. The preparation methods were HF, SB and SB+HF. Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested and compared among different preparation groups and different porcelain materials. The effects of the three kinds of surface preparations were investigated and compared by scanning electronic microscope (SEM).
1.3 Results:
1.3.1 The results of variance analysis shows that the SB ,HF,SB +HF three surface treatments have significant influence in the shear bonding strength. Compared with SB and SB+HF, the HF surface preparation surface preparation group shows the lowest SBS (P<0.05), and the average is lower than the orthodontic clinic bond strength requirement, while there was no significant difference between SB and SB+HF groups (P>0.05), and generally can achieve orthodontic clinic bond strength requirement. For The same kind of surface treatment method, there was no significant difference of SBS among the three kinds of porcelain materials (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different materials and three surface treatments methods.
1.3.2 The SEM observation results show that no matter what kind of porcelain material were made by three different surface treatment methods, relative to the surface without treatment, there has been an increase in the surface roughness and porosity. While the SB and SB+HF surface roughness of the specimen surface porosity are higher than the HF treatment group alone, SB and SB+HF of surface treatment effect is nearly equal.
1.4 Conclusion: The difference of porcelain restoration material does not result in the change of SBS for the metal bracket which were bonded to them, from the perspective of increasing the SBS of orthodontic bracket to porcelain restorations, SB preparation is a priority for surface treatment of choice compared with the HF, but the HF preparation combined with SB can not provide more higher SBS compared with SB treatment alone. It is suggested that the HF after SB is unnecessary for the bonding strength improving.
2. The effects of various surface preparation methods with coupling agent on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces
2.1 Objectives: this part of the study is aimed to investigate the effects of various surface preparation methods with coupling agent on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces.
2.2 Methods: 3 kinds of porcelain restoration materials were sampled and produced into specimens. Every kind of material specimens were divided into 4 groups according the preparation method. The preparation methods were sandblasting (SB), hydrofluoric (HF) acid, sandblasting combined silane coupling agent(SB+CP)and hydrofluoric combined silane coupling agent (HF+CP). Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested and compared among different preparation groups and different porcelain materials.
2. 3 Result: The results of variance analysis shows that silane coupling agent (CP) can significantly improve the SBS either SB or HF (P<0.05) when it plays as an auxiliary measures for surface treatment, and the characteristics of CP at this point do not depend on the kind of ceramic restoration material (P>0.05). Through the sole HF preparation can not result in enough SBS for orthodontic treatment, the CP combined with HF surface treatment can improve the SBS to the clinical requirement.
2. 4 Conclusion: These results suggest that the CP as an auxiliary measure can result in the improvement of the SBS for the SB or HF porcelain surface treatment. The HF+CP surface treatment could increase the SBS while the SBS of HF preparation is not satisfied with the clinical requirement.
3. According to the results of the two parts above, the following conclusions could be achieved.
3.1 For the various surface treatment methods, there is no significant difference for the mental bracket to be bonded to the ceramic restoration if the ceramic materials are different. 3.2 For different materials production restoration, the SB surface treatment can ensure the SBS of orthodontic brackets achieve the clinical requirements, while the HF treatment can not reach the SBS, and the SB+ HF treatment can not result in higher strength than the SB alone. It is suggested that SB is a priority surface treatment for the ceramic restorations, and the HF as an auxiliary measure in SB treatment is not necessary for the bonding strength improving.
3.3 As the porcelain restorations are made of different material, the CP can improve the SBS significantly either SB or for HF when it is used as an auxiliary measure. And it can change the bonding strength under HF preparation to reach clinical requirement. This result shows it is necessary for the CP to be combined with HF preparation. And if without special requirement for the bonding strength, it is not necessary for the CP to be combined with SB preparation since the strength under SB preparation alone is enough for the orthodontic treatment.
一.不同表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷修复体黏结强度影响的研究
1.研究目的
酸蚀、喷砂、酸蚀+喷砂联合处理,是目前临床上黏结托槽前对瓷修复体表面较为常用的三种处理方法,本研究的目的在于分析上述三种不同的表面处理方法作用于上述三种不同材料制作的修复体,是否会对其与托槽的黏结强度产生不同的影响,从而为临床中针对不同的瓷修复体选择合适的表面处理方法提供参考依据。
2.研究方法
分别以VMK@95 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@7 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@9 A2体瓷粉制作试件各24个。每种材料制作的试件各分为以下三个不同的处理组:(1)酸蚀处理组;(2)喷砂处理组;(3)酸蚀+喷砂处理组进行表面处理后黏结金属托槽,测量计算每个试件的托槽黏结剪切强度,比较同一种表面处理方法作用于不同的瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性;比较不同的表面处理方法作用于同一种瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性。然后,通过电镜扫描观察,分析比较不同表面处理方法对瓷修复体表面处理效果的差异性。
3.研究结果
(1)方差分析结果显示,喷砂,酸蚀,喷砂+酸蚀三种表面处理方法对同一种陶瓷材料与托槽黏结的抗剪切强度有显著性影响。相比喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组,酸蚀组显示了最小的抗剪切强度(P<0.05),且低于正畸临床黏结强度的要求;而喷砂组和喷砂+酸蚀组则无统计学差异(P>0.05),且一般都能达到正畸临床黏结强度的要求。同一种表面处理方法对三种陶瓷不同材料制作的试件进行表面处理后,对其与托槽粘接的抗剪切强度无统计学差异(P>0.05)。三种陶瓷材料与三种处理方法间无交互作用(P>0.05)。(2)电镜扫面观察结果显示,无论对于哪一种材料的陶瓷试件,经三种不同的表面处理方法后,相对于没有经过处理的表面,都有增加其表面粗糙性、增加其表面孔隙率的作用。而喷砂及喷砂+酸蚀组处理后试件表面的粗糙度和表面孔隙率要高于酸蚀处理组;喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组的表面处理效果则比较相近。
4.结论
陶瓷修复体所用材料的不同,不对其与金属托槽的黏结强度构成影响;从提高托槽的黏结强度的角度来看,相对于酸蚀处理方法,喷砂处理是一种要优先选择的表面处理方法;而在应用喷砂处理方法后,再辅助进行酸蚀处理的做法,并不能起到进一步增加托槽黏结强度的效果,这也就提示我们在临床操作中用酸蚀辅助喷砂处理是不必要的。
二.联合偶联剂表面处理对金属托槽与不同瓷修体黏结强度影响的研究
1.研究目的
探讨不同的表面处理方法联合硅烷偶联剂进行瓷修复体表面处理,对不同陶瓷材料与托槽间黏结强度的影响是否会有差异性。
2.研究方法
分别以VMK@95 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@7 A2体瓷粉,VITA VM@9 A2体瓷粉制作试件各24个。每种材料制作的试件各分为以下四个不同的处理组:(1)酸蚀处理组,(2)喷砂处理组,(3)喷砂+偶联处理组,(4)酸蚀+偶联处理组,进行表面处理后在试件上黏结金属托槽,测量计算每个试件的托槽黏结剪切强度,比较同一种表面处理方法作用于不同的瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度的影响的差异性;比较不同的表面处理方法作用于同一种瓷修复体,对其与托槽黏结剪切强度影响的差异性。
3.研究结果
(1)方差分析结果显示,硅烷偶联剂作为一种辅助的表面处理措施,无论对于喷砂还是酸蚀处理来说,都能显著地提高托槽与瓷修复体表面的黏结强度(P <0.05)。而这种经偶联剂辅助处理后黏结强度提高的特点,是不因为瓷修复体的材料的不同而有显著的差异性的(P>0.05)。
(2)酸蚀处理不同于喷砂处理,单独进行时一般达不到正畸临床托槽黏结强度要求,而辅助硅烷偶联剂处理后,黏结强度得到的很大的提高(P <0.05)。
4.结论
本研究的结果提示硅烷偶联剂作为一种辅助处理措施,可以提高喷砂或酸蚀处理后托槽与瓷修复体表面的黏结强度;联合硅烷偶联剂处理,可使单独应用达不到临床托槽黏结要求的酸蚀表面处理方法,达到临床应用要求。
.结合上述两部分研究结果进行分析,本研究可以得出如下结论:
1.对于不同的表面处理方法来说,陶瓷修复体所用材料的不同,均不对其与金属托槽的黏结强度构成影响;
2.对于不同的瓷修复体来说,如果选用表面粗化处理方法进行托槽黏
结前的表面处理,喷砂处理可以使其与托槽的黏结强度达到临床治疗要求;酸蚀处理则不能使其与托槽的黏结强度达到临床治疗要求;在喷砂处理时辅助酸蚀处理,不能起到明显提高黏结强度的作用。这些结果提示,对于瓷修复体来说,喷砂处理是一种要优先选择的表面处理方法;对于喷砂处理,辅助酸蚀处理没有必要的。
3.对于不同的瓷修复体来说,无论对于喷砂处理还是酸蚀处理,联合
硅烷偶联剂进行表面处理,都能起到显著提高黏结强度的效果,可使原本达不到临床黏结要求的酸蚀处理方法达到临床应用要求。这一结果提示,对于酸蚀处理来说,有必要辅助硅烷偶联剂进行表面处理;而对于喷砂处理来说,因其单独应用已能使托槽的黏结强度达到临床应用要求,因此在对黏结强度没有特殊需求的情况下,没有辅助硅烷偶联剂处理的必要。
With more adults seeking orthodontic treatment, orthodontists must often bond attachments to teeth with ceramic restoration. In such situations, the bond strength of brackets to the ceramic is not enough for the orthodontic treatment if the surface preparation is the same as the way for the bonding bracket to the enamel. Therefore, some special preparations for the bonding between bracket and ceramic are needed, such as etching with hydrofluoric acid(HF), sandblasting the ceramic surface(SB), combination with silane coupling agent(CP). At the present time, the ceramic restorations may be made by different material. Whether could the differences of ceramic restoration materials under different preparations result in the differences of the bond strength? It is very important for the preparation method choice in clinic. This study is focused on the research at this area, and is done from two aspects as follows.
1. The effects of various surface preparation methods on the shear bond strength of mental brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces
1.1 Objectives: HF, SB and SB+HF are the usual surface preparations for the brackets to be bonded to the porcelain restorations. Silica -based ceramic, Aluminum-oxide ceramic and Zirconium-oxide ceramic are the usual porcelain restoration materials at the present time. The study is aimed to investigate whether the effects of the preparations on the porcelain restorations made by different materials are different. The study is useful for the choice of preparation method according to the porcelain restoration materials in the clinic work.
1.2 Methods:3 kinds of porcelain restoration materials (VITA VMK@95, VITA VM@7,VITA VM@9) were sampled and produced into specimens. Every kind of material specimens were divided into 3 groups according the preparation method. The preparation methods were HF, SB and SB+HF. Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested and compared among different preparation groups and different porcelain materials. The effects of the three kinds of surface preparations were investigated and compared by scanning electronic microscope (SEM).
1.3 Results:
1.3.1 The results of variance analysis shows that the SB ,HF,SB +HF three surface treatments have significant influence in the shear bonding strength. Compared with SB and SB+HF, the HF surface preparation surface preparation group shows the lowest SBS (P<0.05), and the average is lower than the orthodontic clinic bond strength requirement, while there was no significant difference between SB and SB+HF groups (P>0.05), and generally can achieve orthodontic clinic bond strength requirement. For The same kind of surface treatment method, there was no significant difference of SBS among the three kinds of porcelain materials (P>0.05). There was no significant difference between the three different materials and three surface treatments methods.
1.3.2 The SEM observation results show that no matter what kind of porcelain material were made by three different surface treatment methods, relative to the surface without treatment, there has been an increase in the surface roughness and porosity. While the SB and SB+HF surface roughness of the specimen surface porosity are higher than the HF treatment group alone, SB and SB+HF of surface treatment effect is nearly equal.
1.4 Conclusion: The difference of porcelain restoration material does not result in the change of SBS for the metal bracket which were bonded to them, from the perspective of increasing the SBS of orthodontic bracket to porcelain restorations, SB preparation is a priority for surface treatment of choice compared with the HF, but the HF preparation combined with SB can not provide more higher SBS compared with SB treatment alone. It is suggested that the HF after SB is unnecessary for the bonding strength improving.
2. The effects of various surface preparation methods with coupling agent on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces
2.1 Objectives: this part of the study is aimed to investigate the effects of various surface preparation methods with coupling agent on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces.
2.2 Methods: 3 kinds of porcelain restoration materials were sampled and produced into specimens. Every kind of material specimens were divided into 4 groups according the preparation method. The preparation methods were sandblasting (SB), hydrofluoric (HF) acid, sandblasting combined silane coupling agent(SB+CP)and hydrofluoric combined silane coupling agent (HF+CP). Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested and compared among different preparation groups and different porcelain materials.
2. 3 Result: The results of variance analysis shows that silane coupling agent (CP) can significantly improve the SBS either SB or HF (P<0.05) when it plays as an auxiliary measures for surface treatment, and the characteristics of CP at this point do not depend on the kind of ceramic restoration material (P>0.05). Through the sole HF preparation can not result in enough SBS for orthodontic treatment, the CP combined with HF surface treatment can improve the SBS to the clinical requirement.
2. 4 Conclusion: These results suggest that the CP as an auxiliary measure can result in the improvement of the SBS for the SB or HF porcelain surface treatment. The HF+CP surface treatment could increase the SBS while the SBS of HF preparation is not satisfied with the clinical requirement.
3. According to the results of the two parts above, the following conclusions could be achieved.
3.1 For the various surface treatment methods, there is no significant difference for the mental bracket to be bonded to the ceramic restoration if the ceramic materials are different. 3.2 For different materials production restoration, the SB surface treatment can ensure the SBS of orthodontic brackets achieve the clinical requirements, while the HF treatment can not reach the SBS, and the SB+ HF treatment can not result in higher strength than the SB alone. It is suggested that SB is a priority surface treatment for the ceramic restorations, and the HF as an auxiliary measure in SB treatment is not necessary for the bonding strength improving.
3.3 As the porcelain restorations are made of different material, the CP can improve the SBS significantly either SB or for HF when it is used as an auxiliary measure. And it can change the bonding strength under HF preparation to reach clinical requirement. This result shows it is necessary for the CP to be combined with HF preparation. And if without special requirement for the bonding strength, it is not necessary for the CP to be combined with SB preparation since the strength under SB preparation alone is enough for the orthodontic treatment.
引文
[1]. Brenner,MDK.The story of dentistry.London:Kimpton Publishers,1959;107.
[2]. Derek WJ. Development of dental ceramics: An historical perspective. Dent Clini North Am, 1985, 29 (4): 621-645
[3]. Matthew Donachie .Biomedical alloys.Advanced Materials Processes,1998;154;63-65.
[4].谢贺明。口腔材料学。第一版。陕西科学技术出版社,1993.34.
[5]. Mclean Jw, Hughes TH. The reinforcement of dental porcelain with ceramic oxides. Br Dent J,1965,1 19:25 1-67.
[6]. Blatz MB.Long term clinical success of all ceramic posterior restorations.Quintessence Int 2002;33:415-26
[7]. Palmer JM.Structural changes in denture fabrication for speech improvement J Prosthet Dent, 1979,41:507.
[8]. Dong JKLuthyH, Wohlwend A, et al. Heat-pressed ceramics technolo-gy and strength. Int J Prosthodont,1992,59-16.。
[9]. Denrr. IL.Rosenstiel SF. Flexural strength and fracture toughness of Di-cor glass-ceramicalter embedment modification. J Dent Res, 1993,72572-6.。
[10]. Wagner WC,et al.J Prosthet Dent,1996,76(2):140-144.
[11].王忠义。实用口腔医学杂志,1991,7(3):181-183
[12]. Mormann W H,et al.JADA,1990,120(3):517-520
[13]. David SB,et al.Esthetic Dent Vpdate,1993,4(5):106-110.
[14].马轩祥,赵铱民编著。《口腔修复学》
[15]. Kelly JR,Nishimura I,Campbell SD.Ceramics in dentistry;historical roots and current perspectives.J Prosthet Dent,1996;75;18-32
[16].徐军伍主编。口腔修复理论与临床。第一版。北京:人民卫生出版社,99,656-657.
[17]. Campbell SD,Pelletier LB, Pober RL,et al.Dimensional and formation analysis of a restorative ceramic and how it works.J Prosthet Dent,1995;74;332-340.
[18]. Garvie RO,Hannick RH,PascoeRT.Ceramics Steel .Nature,1975,258(4): 703-706.
[19]. Kern M,Wegner SM.Bonding to zirconia ceramics:adhesion methods and their durability.Dent Mater,1998,14(1):64-71.
[20]. I. Gillis and M. Redlich, The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114 (1998), pp. 387–392.
[21]. B.U. Zachrisson and T. Buyukyilmaz, Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam and porcelain, J Clin Orthod 27 (1993), pp. 661–675.
[22]. Kuiec KA, WuertzKM, BarkmeierWW,et al.Evaluation of porcelain surface treatment and agents for composite-toporcelain repair[J].J Prosthet Dent,1996,76(2):119-124.
[23]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM, BarkmeierWW.Bond strength of compositr resion to porcelain with newer generation porcelain repair materials[J].J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6-11
[24]. Suliman AHA,Awift EJ,Jr Perdigao J.Effects of surface treatments and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain[J].J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(2):118-120
[25]. WolfDM,Power JM,O’Keefe KL.Bond strength of composite to porcelain treated with new porcelain repair agents[J].Dent Mater,1992,8(2):158-161.
[26]. Kato H,Mastumura H,Tanaka T,et al.Bond strength and durability of porcelain bonding systems[J].J Prosthet Dent,1996,75(1):163-168.
[27]. Storensen JA,Engelman MJ,Torres TJ,et al. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain [J].Int J Prosthodent,1991,4(1):17-23.
[28]. T. Akova, O. Yoldas, S. Toroglu and H. Uysal, Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128 (2005), pp. 630–637
[29]. Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, et al. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic.Angle Orthod, 2007,77(4):723-728.
[30]. Amliya W,Oden A,Yaman P,et al.Shear bond strength of a resin cement to densely sintered high purity alumina with various surface conditions[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 1998, 56:9-13.
[31]. Chung KH,Hwang YC,Bonding strength of porcelain repair systems with various surface treatments.J Prosthet Dent,1997;78;267-274.
[32]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM.J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6
[33]. Lacy AM,Aatuz J,Watanbe LG,Dellinages M.Effect of porcelain surface treatment of the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 60:288-91
[34]. Calamin JR. Etched porcelain veneers:the current state of the art. Quintessence Int 1985; 16:5-12.
[35]. Thurmpnd JW,Barkmeier WW,WilwerdingTM.JProsthet Dent, 1994, 72(4):355
[36]. BertolottiRL,Lacy AM,Watanabe LG.Int Prosthodont, 1989,2(6): 483
[37]. Matsumura H, Kawahara M, Tanaka T,et al.J Dent Res,1989,68(5):813
[38]. Kato H,Matsumura H Tanaka T,et al.J Dent,1996,75(2):163
[39]. Calamin JR. Etched porcelain veneers:the current state of the art. Quintessence Int 1985; 16:5-12
[40]. Kem M,Thompson VP.Sandblasting and silica coating of a glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: volme loss, morphology, and changes in the surface composition, J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:453-61.
[41]. Cochran D, O′Keefe KL, Turner DT, et al. Bond strength of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1997,111 (3):297-300.
[42].范存晖,陈杰,刘新强等.瓷面处理对金属托槽与瓷面黏接性能的影响.华西口腔医学杂志, 2005,23(4):341-343.
[43]. Ariyaratnam MT, Wilson MA, Mackie IC, et al.A comparison of surface roughness and composite/enamel bond strength of human enamel following the application of the Nd:YAG laser and etching with phosphoric acid.Dent Mater, 1997,13(1):51~55。
[44].刘嘉王忠义张丽仙不同瓷表面处理方式对烤瓷一光固化树脂黏结作用的对比3
[45]. Fuhrmann R,Guthnecht N,Magunski A,et al.Conditioning of enamel with Nd:YAG and CO2 dental laser systems and with phosphoric acid.An in-vitro comparison of the tensile bond strength and the morphology of the enamel surface. J Orofac Orthop, 2001, 62:375-386.
[46]. Foxton RM,Pereira PN,Nakajima M,et al.Durability of the dual-cure resin cement/ceramic bond with different curing stratesies.J Adhes Dent,2002,4:49-59.
[47]. Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, et al. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding.Am J Orthod Dent ofacial Orthop, 2005,128(5):630-637.
[48]. Daffenbarge GC,Wweeney WT,Bowen RL.Bonding porcelain teeth to arylic resin denture basess .J Am Dent Assoc 1967;74:1018-23
[49]. Jlobell A,NichilsJI,KoisJC.DalyCH.Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems.Int J Prosthet 1992;5:205-13.
[50].王迎捷,陈吉华,沈丽娟,等.不同类型硅烷偶联剂处理对瓷和树脂黏结界面影响[J]口腔医学研究,2007,23(1):53-56
[51]. Hooshmand T,van Noort R,Keshvad A.Bond Durability of the resin-bonded and silane treated ceramic surface[J].Dent Mat,2002, 18(2):179-188.
[52]. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M.Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature.J Prosthet Dent, 2003, 89(3):268-274
[53]. Lacy AM,Aatuz J,Watanbe LG,Dellinages M.Effect of porcelain surface treatment of the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 60:288-91
[54]. Thurmpnd JW,Barkmeier WW,WilwerdingTM.JProsthet Dent,1994, 72(4):355
[55]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM.J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6
[56]. Kem M,ThompsonVP.Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina cera- mic :adsesive methods and their durability. J Prosthet Dent 1995,17(3):240-9
[57]. Sadoun M,Asmussen E.Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic adhesive methods and their durability J Prosthet Dent 1994,110:185-9
[58]. Sato K,Matsumura H,Atsuta M.Effect of three-liquid bonding agents on bond strength to a machine milled ceramic material[J].J Oral Rehabil,1999(26):570-574.
[59]. Xie B,Dickens SH,Giuseppetti AA.Microtensile bond strength of thermally stressed composite-dentin bonds mediated by one-bottleadhesives[J].Am J Dent,2002,12:177-184.
[60]. Miyazaki M,Sato M,Onose H.Influence of thermal cycling on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems[J].Am J Dent,1998,11:118-122.
[61]. Kitasako Y,Burrow MF,Nikaido T.The influence of storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement[J].Dent Mater,2000,16:1-6.
[62]. Blatz MB,Sadan A Kern M.Resin-ceamic bonding:A review of the literature J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(3):268-274
[63]. Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability [J]. J ProsthetDent, 1995, 73(3):240-249.
[64]. Sadoun M, Asmussen E. Bonding of resin cements to an aluminous ceramic: a new surface treatment [J]. Dent Mater, 1994, 10(3):185-189.
[65]. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, et al. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ce- ramics[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2003, 89(5): 479-488.
[66]. Filho AM, Vieira LC, Araujo E, et al. Effect of different cermic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength [J]. Prosthodont, 2004, 13(1): 28-35.
[67].陈吉华。瓷修复体的黏结方法。国外口味医学分册,1998;25;29-32,
[68]. Huang XH,Lin S.Fujian Yike Daxue Xuebao.2008;42(3):248-250.黄晓红,林珊.硅烷偶联剂对金属托槽与瓷面黏接强度的影响[J].福建医科大学学报,2008,42(3):248-250.
[69]. Kiyan VH,Saraceni CH,da Silveira BL,et al.The influence of internal surface treatments on tensile bond strength for two ceramic systems.Oper Dent,2007;32;457-465
[70]. Filho AM,Vieira LC,Araujo E,et al.Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensil bond strength.JProsthodont, 2004;13;28-35
[71]. Derand p,derand t.bond strergth of luting cemedts to zir ceramics.Int J Prosthodont,2000;13;131-135
[72].谢海峰,章非敏,汪效祖,等.牙科氧化铝基陶瓷的纳米硅涂层表面改性[J].华西口腔医学杂志, 2006, 24(6):555-558.
[73].盛相军,金志浩,王永兰.氧化锆用于牙修复的研究进展[J].硅酸盐报,2003,22(5): 74-77.
[74].谢海峰,章非敏,陈晨,等.纳米硅涂层对玻璃渗透氧化铝陶瓷黏结强度的影响[J].临床口腔医学杂志2006,22(7):410-412
[75]. Kumbuloglu O,User A,Toksavul S,et al.Intra-oral adhesive systems for ceramic repairs:a comparison[J].Acta Odontol Scand,2003,61(5):268-272
[76]. Van Noort R,Noroozi S,Howard IC.A critique of bond strength measure-ments[J].J Dent,1989,17:61-67.
[77].陈志清,管利民主编.口腔黏结学[M].北京:北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社,1992:17.
[78]. Alvaro Della Bona, Kenneth J,James A.A.Hood.Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement[J].In J Prosthodont, 2002,15(3):248-253.
[79]. DeHoff PH,Anusavice KJ,Wang Z.Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test[J].Dent Mater.1995 Mar;11(2):126-31
[80]. Luthy,marinello CP,Scharer P.Factors influencing mental-resin tensile bond stregth to filled composites[J].Dent Master,1999 Apr;6(2):73-77
[81]. Kitasako Y,Burrow MF,Nikaido T.The influence of storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement[J].Dent Mater,2000,16:1-6.
[2]. Derek WJ. Development of dental ceramics: An historical perspective. Dent Clini North Am, 1985, 29 (4): 621-645
[3]. Matthew Donachie .Biomedical alloys.Advanced Materials Processes,1998;154;63-65.
[4].谢贺明。口腔材料学。第一版。陕西科学技术出版社,1993.34.
[5]. Mclean Jw, Hughes TH. The reinforcement of dental porcelain with ceramic oxides. Br Dent J,1965,1 19:25 1-67.
[6]. Blatz MB.Long term clinical success of all ceramic posterior restorations.Quintessence Int 2002;33:415-26
[7]. Palmer JM.Structural changes in denture fabrication for speech improvement J Prosthet Dent, 1979,41:507.
[8]. Dong JKLuthyH, Wohlwend A, et al. Heat-pressed ceramics technolo-gy and strength. Int J Prosthodont,1992,59-16.。
[9]. Denrr. IL.Rosenstiel SF. Flexural strength and fracture toughness of Di-cor glass-ceramicalter embedment modification. J Dent Res, 1993,72572-6.。
[10]. Wagner WC,et al.J Prosthet Dent,1996,76(2):140-144.
[11].王忠义。实用口腔医学杂志,1991,7(3):181-183
[12]. Mormann W H,et al.JADA,1990,120(3):517-520
[13]. David SB,et al.Esthetic Dent Vpdate,1993,4(5):106-110.
[14].马轩祥,赵铱民编著。《口腔修复学》
[15]. Kelly JR,Nishimura I,Campbell SD.Ceramics in dentistry;historical roots and current perspectives.J Prosthet Dent,1996;75;18-32
[16].徐军伍主编。口腔修复理论与临床。第一版。北京:人民卫生出版社,99,656-657.
[17]. Campbell SD,Pelletier LB, Pober RL,et al.Dimensional and formation analysis of a restorative ceramic and how it works.J Prosthet Dent,1995;74;332-340.
[18]. Garvie RO,Hannick RH,PascoeRT.Ceramics Steel .Nature,1975,258(4): 703-706.
[19]. Kern M,Wegner SM.Bonding to zirconia ceramics:adhesion methods and their durability.Dent Mater,1998,14(1):64-71.
[20]. I. Gillis and M. Redlich, The effect of different porcelain conditioning techniques on shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 114 (1998), pp. 387–392.
[21]. B.U. Zachrisson and T. Buyukyilmaz, Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam and porcelain, J Clin Orthod 27 (1993), pp. 661–675.
[22]. Kuiec KA, WuertzKM, BarkmeierWW,et al.Evaluation of porcelain surface treatment and agents for composite-toporcelain repair[J].J Prosthet Dent,1996,76(2):119-124.
[23]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM, BarkmeierWW.Bond strength of compositr resion to porcelain with newer generation porcelain repair materials[J].J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6-11
[24]. Suliman AHA,Awift EJ,Jr Perdigao J.Effects of surface treatments and bonding agents on bond strength of composite resin to porcelain[J].J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(2):118-120
[25]. WolfDM,Power JM,O’Keefe KL.Bond strength of composite to porcelain treated with new porcelain repair agents[J].Dent Mater,1992,8(2):158-161.
[26]. Kato H,Mastumura H,Tanaka T,et al.Bond strength and durability of porcelain bonding systems[J].J Prosthet Dent,1996,75(1):163-168.
[27]. Storensen JA,Engelman MJ,Torres TJ,et al. Shear bond strength of composite resin to porcelain [J].Int J Prosthodent,1991,4(1):17-23.
[28]. T. Akova, O. Yoldas, S. Toroglu and H. Uysal, Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 128 (2005), pp. 630–637
[29]. Sarac YS, Elekdag-Turk S, Sarac D, et al. Surface conditioning methods and polishing techniques effect on surface roughness of a feldspar ceramic.Angle Orthod, 2007,77(4):723-728.
[30]. Amliya W,Oden A,Yaman P,et al.Shear bond strength of a resin cement to densely sintered high purity alumina with various surface conditions[J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 1998, 56:9-13.
[31]. Chung KH,Hwang YC,Bonding strength of porcelain repair systems with various surface treatments.J Prosthet Dent,1997;78;267-274.
[32]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM.J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6
[33]. Lacy AM,Aatuz J,Watanbe LG,Dellinages M.Effect of porcelain surface treatment of the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 60:288-91
[34]. Calamin JR. Etched porcelain veneers:the current state of the art. Quintessence Int 1985; 16:5-12.
[35]. Thurmpnd JW,Barkmeier WW,WilwerdingTM.JProsthet Dent, 1994, 72(4):355
[36]. BertolottiRL,Lacy AM,Watanabe LG.Int Prosthodont, 1989,2(6): 483
[37]. Matsumura H, Kawahara M, Tanaka T,et al.J Dent Res,1989,68(5):813
[38]. Kato H,Matsumura H Tanaka T,et al.J Dent,1996,75(2):163
[39]. Calamin JR. Etched porcelain veneers:the current state of the art. Quintessence Int 1985; 16:5-12
[40]. Kem M,Thompson VP.Sandblasting and silica coating of a glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: volme loss, morphology, and changes in the surface composition, J Prosthet Dent 1994;71:453-61.
[41]. Cochran D, O′Keefe KL, Turner DT, et al. Bond strength of orthodontic composite cement to treated porcelain.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1997,111 (3):297-300.
[42].范存晖,陈杰,刘新强等.瓷面处理对金属托槽与瓷面黏接性能的影响.华西口腔医学杂志, 2005,23(4):341-343.
[43]. Ariyaratnam MT, Wilson MA, Mackie IC, et al.A comparison of surface roughness and composite/enamel bond strength of human enamel following the application of the Nd:YAG laser and etching with phosphoric acid.Dent Mater, 1997,13(1):51~55。
[44].刘嘉王忠义张丽仙不同瓷表面处理方式对烤瓷一光固化树脂黏结作用的对比3
[45]. Fuhrmann R,Guthnecht N,Magunski A,et al.Conditioning of enamel with Nd:YAG and CO2 dental laser systems and with phosphoric acid.An in-vitro comparison of the tensile bond strength and the morphology of the enamel surface. J Orofac Orthop, 2001, 62:375-386.
[46]. Foxton RM,Pereira PN,Nakajima M,et al.Durability of the dual-cure resin cement/ceramic bond with different curing stratesies.J Adhes Dent,2002,4:49-59.
[47]. Akova T, Yoldas O, Toroglu MS, et al. Porcelain surface treatment by laser for bracket-porcelain bonding.Am J Orthod Dent ofacial Orthop, 2005,128(5):630-637.
[48]. Daffenbarge GC,Wweeney WT,Bowen RL.Bonding porcelain teeth to arylic resin denture basess .J Am Dent Assoc 1967;74:1018-23
[49]. Jlobell A,NichilsJI,KoisJC.DalyCH.Fatigue life of porcelain repair systems.Int J Prosthet 1992;5:205-13.
[50].王迎捷,陈吉华,沈丽娟,等.不同类型硅烷偶联剂处理对瓷和树脂黏结界面影响[J]口腔医学研究,2007,23(1):53-56
[51]. Hooshmand T,van Noort R,Keshvad A.Bond Durability of the resin-bonded and silane treated ceramic surface[J].Dent Mat,2002, 18(2):179-188.
[52]. Blatz MB, Sadan A, Kern M.Resin-ceramic bonding: a review of the literature.J Prosthet Dent, 2003, 89(3):268-274
[53]. Lacy AM,Aatuz J,Watanbe LG,Dellinages M.Effect of porcelain surface treatment of the bond to composite. J Prosthet Dent 1998; 60:288-91
[54]. Thurmpnd JW,Barkmeier WW,WilwerdingTM.JProsthet Dent,1994, 72(4):355
[55]. Appeldoorn RE,Wilwerding TM.J Prosthet Dent,1993,70(1):6
[56]. Kem M,ThompsonVP.Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina cera- mic :adsesive methods and their durability. J Prosthet Dent 1995,17(3):240-9
[57]. Sadoun M,Asmussen E.Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic adhesive methods and their durability J Prosthet Dent 1994,110:185-9
[58]. Sato K,Matsumura H,Atsuta M.Effect of three-liquid bonding agents on bond strength to a machine milled ceramic material[J].J Oral Rehabil,1999(26):570-574.
[59]. Xie B,Dickens SH,Giuseppetti AA.Microtensile bond strength of thermally stressed composite-dentin bonds mediated by one-bottleadhesives[J].Am J Dent,2002,12:177-184.
[60]. Miyazaki M,Sato M,Onose H.Influence of thermal cycling on dentin bond strength of two-step bonding systems[J].Am J Dent,1998,11:118-122.
[61]. Kitasako Y,Burrow MF,Nikaido T.The influence of storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement[J].Dent Mater,2000,16:1-6.
[62]. Blatz MB,Sadan A Kern M.Resin-ceamic bonding:A review of the literature J Prosthet Dent 2003;89(3):268-274
[63]. Kern M, Thompson VP. Bonding to glass infiltrated alumina ceramic: adhesive methods and their durability [J]. J ProsthetDent, 1995, 73(3):240-249.
[64]. Sadoun M, Asmussen E. Bonding of resin cements to an aluminous ceramic: a new surface treatment [J]. Dent Mater, 1994, 10(3):185-189.
[65]. Borges GA, Sophr AM, de Goes MF, et al. Effect of etching and airborne particle abrasion on the microstructure of different dental ce- ramics[J]. J Prosthet Dent, 2003, 89(5): 479-488.
[66]. Filho AM, Vieira LC, Araujo E, et al. Effect of different cermic surface treatments on resin microtensile bond strength [J]. Prosthodont, 2004, 13(1): 28-35.
[67].陈吉华。瓷修复体的黏结方法。国外口味医学分册,1998;25;29-32,
[68]. Huang XH,Lin S.Fujian Yike Daxue Xuebao.2008;42(3):248-250.黄晓红,林珊.硅烷偶联剂对金属托槽与瓷面黏接强度的影响[J].福建医科大学学报,2008,42(3):248-250.
[69]. Kiyan VH,Saraceni CH,da Silveira BL,et al.The influence of internal surface treatments on tensile bond strength for two ceramic systems.Oper Dent,2007;32;457-465
[70]. Filho AM,Vieira LC,Araujo E,et al.Effect of different ceramic surface treatments on resin microtensil bond strength.JProsthodont, 2004;13;28-35
[71]. Derand p,derand t.bond strergth of luting cemedts to zir ceramics.Int J Prosthodont,2000;13;131-135
[72].谢海峰,章非敏,汪效祖,等.牙科氧化铝基陶瓷的纳米硅涂层表面改性[J].华西口腔医学杂志, 2006, 24(6):555-558.
[73].盛相军,金志浩,王永兰.氧化锆用于牙修复的研究进展[J].硅酸盐报,2003,22(5): 74-77.
[74].谢海峰,章非敏,陈晨,等.纳米硅涂层对玻璃渗透氧化铝陶瓷黏结强度的影响[J].临床口腔医学杂志2006,22(7):410-412
[75]. Kumbuloglu O,User A,Toksavul S,et al.Intra-oral adhesive systems for ceramic repairs:a comparison[J].Acta Odontol Scand,2003,61(5):268-272
[76]. Van Noort R,Noroozi S,Howard IC.A critique of bond strength measure-ments[J].J Dent,1989,17:61-67.
[77].陈志清,管利民主编.口腔黏结学[M].北京:北京医科大学中国协和医科大学联合出版社,1992:17.
[78]. Alvaro Della Bona, Kenneth J,James A.A.Hood.Effect of ceramic surface treatment on tensile bond strength to a resin cement[J].In J Prosthodont, 2002,15(3):248-253.
[79]. DeHoff PH,Anusavice KJ,Wang Z.Three-dimensional finite element analysis of the shear bond test[J].Dent Mater.1995 Mar;11(2):126-31
[80]. Luthy,marinello CP,Scharer P.Factors influencing mental-resin tensile bond stregth to filled composites[J].Dent Master,1999 Apr;6(2):73-77
[81]. Kitasako Y,Burrow MF,Nikaido T.The influence of storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement[J].Dent Mater,2000,16:1-6.