Haydar B, Sarikaya S, Cehreli Z C
Hacettepe University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Sihhiye, Ankara, Turkey.
Angle Orthod. 1999 Oct;69(5):457-62. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0457:COSBSO>2.3.CO;2.
Shear bond strengths of a light-cured composite resin, a light-cured glass ionomer cement, and a light-cured compomer used with metal and ceramic brackets were compared, and ARI scores were evaluated. Ceramic brackets showed statistically higher shear bond strengths than metal brackets when bonded with all test materials (p<0.001). When used with metal brackets, the light-cured glass ionomer cement (LCGIC) and compomer materials demonstrated statistically lower shear bond strengths than the light-cured composite (p<0.01 and p<0.001, respectively). When used with ceramic brackets, LCGIC was found to have significantly lower shear bond strength than the composite material (p<0.001). Despite its relatively low shear bond strength, LCGIC demonstrated optimal bonding values (8.39+/-3.24 MPa) with ceramic brackets. Bond failures within the LCGIC groups occurred at the adhesive-tooth interface, whereas in the compomer and composite groups, failures were detected at the adhesive-bracket interface. In the metal bracket group, clinically acceptable shear bond strength was obtained only with the composite resin (7.06+/-1.65 MPa). Compomer and LCGIC demonstrated values well below the accepted standard for metal brackets (4.32+/-1.75 MPa and 4.45+/-1.06, respectively), while in the ceramic bracket group, values for composite and compomer were above the desired level (14.40+/-5.88 MPa and 12.31+/-6.09, respectively). LCGIC showed reasonably good bond strength with ceramic brackets, suggesting that this material may be considered suitable for use with ceramic brackets in clinical situations where moisture cannot be controlled.
比较了光固化复合树脂、光固化玻璃离子水门汀和光固化复合体与金属及陶瓷托槽使用时的剪切粘结强度,并评估了粘结失败率(ARI)评分。当与所有测试材料粘结时,陶瓷托槽的剪切粘结强度在统计学上高于金属托槽(p<0.001)。当与金属托槽一起使用时,光固化玻璃离子水门汀(LCGIC)和复合体材料的剪切粘结强度在统计学上低于光固化复合树脂(分别为p<0.01和p<0.001)。当与陶瓷托槽一起使用时,发现LCGIC的剪切粘结强度显著低于复合材料(p<0.001)。尽管LCGIC的剪切粘结强度相对较低,但它与陶瓷托槽的粘结值最佳(8.39±3.24MPa)。LCGIC组内的粘结失败发生在粘结剂与牙齿的界面,而在复合体和复合树脂组中,失败发生在粘结剂与托槽的界面。在金属托槽组中,仅光固化复合树脂获得了临床可接受的剪切粘结强度(7.06±1.65MPa)。复合体和LCGIC的数值远低于金属托槽的公认标准(分别为4.32±1.75MPa和4.45±1.06),而在陶瓷托槽组中,复合材料和复合体的数值高于期望水平(分别为14.40±5.88MPa和12.31±6.09)。LCGIC与陶瓷托槽显示出相当好的粘结强度,这表明在无法控制湿度的临床情况下,这种材料可被认为适用于与陶瓷托槽一起使用。