| 牛建华,孙坚,张晏平,洪瑾.不同再粘接方法对托槽粘接效果的影响[J].口腔材料器械杂志,2013,22(2):71-75. |
| 不同再粘接方法对托槽粘接效果的影响 |
| Influence of different bonding methods on the rebonding effects of orthodontic brackets |
| 投稿时间：2012-10-28 修订日期：2012-11-19 |
| DOI：10.11752/j.kqcl.2013.02.04 |
| 中文关键词: 牙齿粘接 托槽 酸蚀 粘接强度 |
| 英文关键词:Dental bonding Acid-etching Bond strength |
| 基金项目:上海市科学技术委员会生物医药重点科技攻关项目(No.064119542) |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 1162 |
| 全文下载次数: 0 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 目的: 评价托槽再粘接过程中酸蚀对再粘接效果的影响,比较传统两步法和自酸蚀一步法对再粘接效果的影响。方法: 收集40颗由于正畸治疗需要拔除的上颌第二前磨牙,随机分成4组。分别运用传统两步法(组1和组2)和自酸蚀一步法(组3和组4)进行首次托槽粘接。然后再去托槽,进行牙面处理,各组分别用相同的粘接剂重新粘接,其中组2和组4粘接前无酸蚀。再粘接后24h,对40颗牙进行剪切粘接强度(SBS)以及粘接剂剩余指数(ARI)的检测,并在扫描电镜下对牙釉质面进行观察。结果: 按组1-组4的顺序,其平均SBS值分别为14.18、6.57、11.90和5.91 MPa。其中组1与组2、组3与组4之间的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而组1与组3、组2与组4之间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。ARI指数在组1与组2之间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);其它各组间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。扫描电镜照片显示:组1与组2的釉质面上有大面积以及较深的沟裂;组3与组4釉质上有相对较浅的小凹。结论: 在本试验条件下:①再粘接过程中未经酸蚀也可获得临床所需的粘接强度,且牙釉质面比再次酸蚀者破坏范围相对较小;②传统两步法与自酸蚀一步法所获的托槽再粘接强度以及粘接剂剩余指数无明显差异。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Objective:To investigate whether an acid etching step is necessary for rebonding orthodontic brackets, and to compare the results of brackets rebonding using the conventional two-stage etching and mer method (CEP) and the self-etching primer method(SEP). Methods:Forty human maxillary second premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups(10 teeth in each group). Group 1 and Group 2 were initially bonded using the CEP method; While Group 3 and Group 4 were bonded using the SEP method. All the brackets were debonded using the universal machine and followed by enamel cleanup. Thereafter, 40 new brackets were rebonded using four different protocols; Groupl:37% ophosphoric acid+non-acidic primer+adhesive; Group2: non-acidic primer+adhesive; Group3:self-etch acidic-primer+adhesive; Group4; non-acidic primer+adhesive. 24 hours after rebonding, the shear bond strength(SBS) of the samples in each group was tested and the measurements of adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) and SEM examination were performed. Results: The mean SBS for group 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 14.18, 6.57, 11.90, 5.91 MPs, respectively. There were statistical differences between SBS of groupl and 2(P>0.05), and between those of group3 and 4(P>0.05). No statistical difference was found between SBS of group 1 and 3 (P>0.05) or between those of group 2 and 4 (P>0.05). Couclusions Omission of the acid-etching step in rebonding orthodontic brackets may reach the clinical requirement for SBS (5.9 MPa), while without increasing the risk of enamel fracture (8 MPa). No statistical differences in SBS and ARI of rebonded brackets were found between the samples with CEP and SEP methods. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
|
|
|