欢迎来到OAJRC平台！

核心 CSCIED

期刊栏目

投稿

审稿

期刊目次

加入编委

期刊订阅

添加您的邮件地址以接收即将发行期刊数据：

当前位置：国际临床研究杂志 > 2026年 10卷 (3)期

Open Access Article

International Journal of Clinical Research. 2026; 10: (3) ; 43-49 ; DOI: 10.12208/j.ijcr.20260126.

Comparative study on the bonding performance of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin adhesives in primary tooth caries restorations
乳牙龋充填中亲水性与疏水性树脂粘接剂粘接性能的比较研究

作者： 陈泽钊, 吕炳建 *

河北医科大学口腔医院儿童口腔科河北石家庄

*通讯作者：吕炳建,单位：河北医科大学口腔医院儿童口腔科河北石家庄; ；

发布时间: 2026-03-28 总浏览量: 72

PDF 全文下载引用本文

摘要

目的比较乳牙龋充填中亲水性与疏水性树脂粘接剂的粘接性能及临床效果，评价其在乳牙修复中的适用性。方法选取需行树脂充填治疗的乳磨牙患儿共60名（120颗牙），采用随机分组方法分为两组：A组应用亲水性粘接剂（Embrace™ WetBond），B组应用传统疏水性粘接剂。临床实验部分于充填后6个月及12个月随访，依据改良USPHS标准评价边缘着色、边缘完整性及充填体保留情况。体外实验部分选取拔除的健康乳牙，按相同分组制备标准化试样，检测微剪切粘接强度（μSBS），并通过染料渗透试验评价粘接界面密封性。所得数据采用t检验与χ²检验进行统计学分析，显著性水平设定为P＜0.05。结果体外实验结果显示，亲水性粘接剂组的微剪切粘接强度（22.6±4.3 MPa）显著高于疏水性粘接剂组（18.2±3.9 MPa）（P＜0.05），染料渗透试验结果表明，亲水性组的平均染料渗入深度（42.8±10.2μm）显著小于疏水性组（65.4±11.8μm）（P＜0.05）。临床随访结果表明，A组（亲水性粘接剂）充填体在12个月时的保留率为95.0%，显著高于B组（疏水性粘接剂）的86.7%（P＜0.05）。在边缘完整性方面，A组评分显著优于B组（P＜0.05）；边缘着色方面，两组差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05），但A组呈轻度优势趋势。结论亲水性树脂粘接剂在乳牙龋充填中表现出较高的粘接强度和良好的临床保持效果，对乳牙牙本质湿度具有较强的适应性，能够在相对湿润的操作环境下获得稳定、可靠的粘接界面。结果提示，在12个月的随访内，亲水性粘接体系显示更高的修复体保留率与更佳的边缘完整性；其对湿度条件的适应性可能更契合儿童治疗场景。仍需更长随访与更严格的统计模型验证其远期优势。

关键词： 乳牙；龋充填；亲水性树脂粘接剂；疏水性粘接剂；粘接性能

Abstract

Objective To compare the bonding performance and clinical outcomes of hydrophilic and hydrophobic resin adhesives in primary tooth caries restorations, and to evaluate their applicability in primary tooth repair.
Methods A total of 60 children (120 primary molars) requiring resin restoration were randomly divided into two groups: Group A received a hydrophilic adhesive (Embrace™ WetBond), and Group B received a conventional hydrophobic adhesive. Clinical evaluation was performed at 6 and 12 months post-restoration according to the modified USPHS criteria, assessing marginal discoloration, marginal integrity, and restoration retention. In the in vitro study, extracted sound primary teeth were prepared into standardized specimens and tested for micro-shear bond strength (μSBS). Dye penetration tests were performed to assess interfacial sealing ability. Data were analyzed using the t-test and χ² test, with a significance level set at P < 0.05.
Results In vitro, the hydrophilic adhesive group showed significantly higher micro-shear bond strength (22.6±4.3 MPa) than the hydrophobic adhesive group (18.2±3.9 MPa) (P < 0.05). The mean dye penetration depth in the hydrophilic group (42.8±10.2 μm) was significantly lower than that in the hydrophobic group (65.4±11.8 μm) (P < 0.05). Clinically, the 12-month retention rate of restorations in Group A was 95.0%, significantly higher than 86.7% in Group B (P < 0.05). Group A also demonstrated superior marginal integrity (P < 0.05), while no significant difference was observed in marginal discoloration (P > 0.05), although a slight advantage was noted for the hydrophilic group.
Conclusion The hydrophilic resin adhesive exhibited higher bond strength and better clinical retention in primary tooth restorations. Its good adaptability to dentin moisture enables stable and reliable bonding in relatively humid clinical conditions. The results suggest that within 12 months of follow-up, the hydrophilic bonding system showed higher retention rates of restorations and better marginal integrity its adaptability to humidity conditions may be more in line with the scenario of children's treatment. Longer follow-up and more rigorous statistical models are still needed to verify its long-term advantages.

Key words： Primary tooth; Caries restoration; Hydrophilic resin adhesive; Hydrophobic adhesive; Bond strength

参考文献 References

[1] Leroy R,Cecere S,Lesaffre E,et al.Caries experience in primary molars and its impact on the variability in permanent tooth emergence sequences[J].J Dent,2009, 37( 11): 865-871.

[2] Jordan AR,Becker N,Johren HP,et al. Early childhood caries and caries experience in permanent dentition:a 15- year cohort study[J]. Swiss Dent J,2016,126:120-125.

[3] Rajendra RE,Srikanth S,Kiranmayi M,et al. Evaluation of flowrate,pH,and buffering capacity of saliva in children with caries,fluorosis,and caries with fluorosis[J]. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent,2023,16(4):587-590.

[4] OLIVEIRA G R,MACHRY R V,CADORE-RODRIGUES A C,et al.Fatigue Properties of Weakened and Non - weakened Roots Restored with CAD-CAM Milled Fiber Post,Prefabricated Fiber Post,or Cast Metal Post [J]. Operative dentistry,2022,47(6):658-669

[5] SPARKS J,FUNDERBURK J M,TANTBIROIN D,et al.Tooth Structure Removed in Primary Molar Prefabricated Crown Preparations of Typodont Teeth[J]. Pediatric dentistry,2022,44(2):136-140.

[6] FEHRENBACH J,ISOLAN C P,MUNCHOW E A. Is the presence of 10-MDP associated to higher bonding performance for self-etching adhesive systems?A meta-analysis of in vitro studies[J].Dent Mater,2021,37(10):1 463-1 485.

[7] SEBOLD M,ANDRE C B,SAHADI B O,et al. Chronological history and current advancements of dental adhesive systems development:a narrative review[J]. J Adhes Sci Technol,2021,35(18):1 941-1 967.

[8] SRI GANESH A. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength between fifth,sixth,seventh,and eighth generation bonding agents:an in vitro study[J]. Indian J Dent Res,2020,31(5):752-757.

[9] 陈晔,杨松,郑明,等.通用型与全酸蚀型粘接剂在即刻牙本质封闭中的粘接效果比较[J].中国卫生标准管理, 2022,13(20):65-70.

[10] Erturk Avunduk AT,Ba glar S.Evaluation of microleakage in class Ⅴ cavities prepared by different caries removal methods[J].Microsc Res Tech,2019,82(9):1566-1574.

[11] Atilan Yavuz S,Erturk Avunduk AT,Karatas O,et al. Impact of acid and laser etching of enamel on microleakage in different adhesive systems [J].Lasers MedSci,2024,39 (1):181.

[12] Comba A,Baldi A,Saratti CM,et al.Could different direct Restoration techniques affect interfacial gap and fracture resistance of end odontically treated anterior teeth? [J].Clin Oral Ivestig,2021,25(10): 5967-5975.

[13] Seow WK. Early childhood caries[J]. Pediatr Clin North Am,2018,65(5):941-954.

[14] West NX,Joiner A. Enamel mineral loss[J]. J Dent,2014,42 (Suppl 1):S2-S11.

[15] Nawrocka A,Lukomska-Szyma'nska M.Extracted human teeth and their utility in dental research.Recommendations on proper preservation:A literature review [J].Dent Med Probl,2019,56 (2):185-190.

[16] SAMARTZI T K,PAPALEXOPOULOS D,NTOVAS P,et al. Deep margin elevation:a literature review[J]. Dent J,2022,10(3):48.

[17] Perdigao JD,Perdigao J, Munoz MA, Sezinando A, et al. Immediate Adhesive Properties to Dentin and Enamel of a Universal Adhesive Associated With a Hydrophobic Resin Coat. Operative Dentistry, 2014,39(5), 489-499.

[18] Zhu J,Fu C,Deng X,et al.Effects of stamp material and Restoration depth on the accuracy of direct composite resin Restorations using stamp technique[J].JDent,2024,150: 105369.

[19] Rajendra RE,Srikanth S,Kiranmayi M,et al. Evaluation of flow rate,pH,and buffering capacity of saliva in children with caries,fluorosis,and caries with fluorosis[J]. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent,2023,16(4):587-590.

引用本文

陈泽钊, 吕炳建, 乳牙龋充填中亲水性与疏水性树脂粘接剂粘接性能的比较研究[J]. 国际临床研究杂志, 2026; 10: (3) : 43-49.

入驻平台

回到顶部

搜索文章: