口腔医学研究 ›› 2026, Vol. 42 ›› Issue (4): 318-324.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2026.04.009

• 口腔修复学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

Er:YAG激光预处理对釉质白斑的陶瓷剪切粘接强度影响研究

杨媛媛1,2,3, 田景玉1,2, 丁瑜1,2, 孟庆飞1,2,3*, 孟箭1,2,3*   

  1. 1.徐州医科大学徐州临床学院口腔科 江苏 徐州 221000;
    2.徐州市中心医院口腔科 江苏 徐州 221000;
    3.徐州医科大学口腔医学院 江苏 徐州 221000
  • 收稿日期:2025-10-11 发布日期:2026-04-23
  • 通讯作者: *孟庆飞,E-mail:1981mqf@163.com;孟箭,E-mail:mrocket@126.com
  • 作者简介:杨媛媛(2001~ ),女,江苏盐城人,硕士在读,住院医师,研究方向:口腔修复学。
  • 基金资助:
    江苏省老年健康科研面上项目(编号:LKM2024031);徐州市新一轮“彭城英才计划”高层次卫生健康人才引进和培养项目(编号:2025DF08)

Effect of Er: YAG Laser Pretreatment on Shear Bond Strength between Enamel White Spot Lesions and Glass Ceramics: An in Vitro Study

YANG Yuanyuan1,2,3, TIAN Jingyu1,2, DING Yu1,2, MENG Qingfei1,2,3*, MENG Jian1,2,3*   

  1. 1. Department of Stomatology, Xuzhou Clinical College, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221000, China;
    2. Department of Stomatology, Xuzhou Central Hospital, Xuzhou 221000, China;
    3. School of Stomatology, Xuzhou Medical University, Xuzhou 221000, China
  • Received:2025-10-11 Published:2026-04-23

摘要: 目的:比较釉质表面不同预处理和粘接界面不同蚀刻方式对釉质白斑表面形态与剪切粘接强度的影响。方法:在108颗完整离体前磨牙中随机选取60颗,在牙冠颊面中央切取4.0 mm×4.0 mm×2.0 mm釉质块,经人工脱矿后将其随机均分为D组(仅进行脱矿)和R组(树脂渗透预处理)。根据釉面蚀刻方式不同将各组样本再均分为3个亚组:P组(37%磷酸处理)、L组(Er:YAG激光照射)和LP组(Er:YAG激光照射+37%磷酸处理)。采用扫描电镜和原子力显微镜分析各亚组釉质表面超微结构变化并对釉质表面粗糙度值进行检测。剩余48颗前磨牙截根包埋后(仅颊侧釉质面暴露),根据上述分组信息进行相应处理并在其颊侧中央粘接圆柱形玻璃陶瓷柱,通过剪切力学测试计算各亚组试件剪切粘接强度,扫描电镜观察并记录试件断裂模式。结果:不同蚀刻方式对釉质表面粗糙度值和陶瓷剪切粘接强度有显著影响(P<0.05),而树脂渗透预处理的影响则无统计学差异(P>0.05)。Er:YAG激光联合37%磷酸蚀刻组的粗糙度值和剪切粘接强度均最高,激光处理组次之,37%磷酸处理组最低。树脂渗透预处理虽不能改善脱矿釉质的陶瓷剪切粘接强度,但显著改变了试件的断裂模式(P<0.05);脱矿组以粘接界面断裂为主,而树脂渗透组则以混合断裂为主。结论:Er:YAG激光单独或联合37%磷酸蚀刻处理,可明显改善釉质白斑表面形态,显著提高釉质白斑的陶瓷剪切粘接强度。

关键词: 釉质白斑, 树脂渗透, Er:YAG激光, 剪切粘接强度, 玻璃陶瓷

Abstract: Objective: To compare the effects of different enamel surface pretreatments and bonding interface etching methods on the surface morphology and shear bond strength (SBS) of enamel white spot lesions (WSLs). Methods: Sixty teeth were randomly selected from 108 intact extracted premolars. A 4.0 mm×4.0 mm×2.0 mm enamel block was cut from the central buccal surface of each crown. After artificial demineralization, the enamel blocks were randomly divided into group D (demineralization only) and group R (resin penetration pretreatment). Based on different enamel etching methods, the samples in each group were further divided into three equal subgroups: P (37% phosphoric acid treatment), L (Er:YAG laser irradiation), and LP (Er:YAG laser irradiation + 37% phosphoric acid treatment). The surface morphology and roughness of the enamel were examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and atomic force microscopy (AFM), respectively. After cutting off the roots and embedding the remaining 48 premolars (with only the buccal enamel surface exposed), corresponding treatments were applied based on the above grouping information. Cylindrical glass-ceramic columns were then bonded to the center of the buccal surfaces. The SBS was evaluated through shear bond strength test, and the fracture modes were recorded using SEM. Results: The etching methods significantly affected the enamel surface roughness and shear bond strength of the WSLs (P<0.05), while resin penetration pretreatment showed no statistically difference (P>0.05). The groups treated with the Er:YAG laser combined with 37% phosphoric acid etching exhibited the highest roughness and SBS, followed by the laser-only groups, with the 37% phosphoric acid groups showing the lowest values. Resin penetration pretreatment did not improve the SBS of the WSLs, but significantly affected the fracture patterns among groups (P<0.05). The adhesive failure mainly occurred in group D, whereas the mixed failure occurred in group R. Conclusion: Er:YAG laser pretreatment alone or combined with 37% phosphoric acid etching significantly improves the surface morphology of WSLs and increases the SBS between WSLs and glass ceramics.

Key words: white spot lesions, resin penetration, Er:YAG laser, shear bond strength, glass ceramics