摘要目的 比较3种树脂粘接剂与牙齿粘接界面的微裂隙,以期为临床提供参考.方法 收集15颗人离体第三恒磨牙,用随机数字表随机分为3组(每组5颗),颊侧备洞后,分别用全酸蚀粘接剂(3M ESPE Adper Single Bond 2)(A组)、双组分自酸蚀粘接剂(3M ESPE Adper SE Plus)(B组)和单组分自酸蚀粘接剂(iBond Self Etch)(C组)进行粘接,树脂充填.扫描电镜下定点测量充填体侧壁、底壁与牙体间的微裂隙宽度,所有试样经3000次冷热循环后再次测量.使用秩和检验比较3组组间差异和冷热循环前后差异.结果 冷热循环后各组侧壁或底壁的微裂隙宽度均比冷热循环前显著增加(P＜0.05),冷热循环前后A、B、C组侧壁或底壁微裂隙宽度增加量[侧壁:1.33(1.14,1.74)、1.27(1.04,1.86)、1.11(0.55,1.46) μm；底壁:2.22(1.36,2.50)、1.91 (1.48,2.88)、2.38(2.08,2.47) μm]差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 3种树脂粘接剂对牙齿粘接性能的影响无差异；冷热循环可破坏粘接界面的稳定性.

abstractsObjective To evaluate the interface microgap between resin adhesive and teeth.Methods Single-sided cavities were prepared on buccal surface of 15 freshly extracted molars.Then the molars were randomly divided into 3 groups.In each group,the cavities were restored with 3M Z250,and bonded with one of the three types of adhesives:total etch adhesive 3M ESPE Adper Single Bond 2 (A group),two-component self-etching adhesive 3M ESPE Adper SE Plus(B group),and one-component self-etching adhesive iBond Self Etch(C group).The interface microgap at side wall and bottom of the cavities on the prosthesis middle section were observed and measured using Phenom proX scanning electron microscopy (SEM).After all the samples were subjected to thermal cycling (3000 times,5-55 ℃),measurement procedures were conducted again.Results After thermal cycling,the microgap became significantly larger in each group (P ＜ 0.05).There was no statistical difference among the increase of specific width in A group,B group and C group [sidewall:1.33 (1.14,1.74),1.27 (1.04,1.86),1.11 (0.55,1.46) μm;bottom wail:2.22 (1.36,2.50),1.91 (1.48,2.88),2.38 (2.08,2.47) μm] (P ＞ 0.05).Conclusions Different bonding agents have no different teeth bonding properties.Thermal cycling has negative effect on the stability of adhesive interface.