Miles P G
Aust Orthod J. 2000 Jul;16(2):115-7.
This study compared the retention rates of thermally-cured (TC) and light-cured (LC) custom bases attached to metal mini-diamond brackets and clear Spirit MB brackets, when used in indirect bonding procedures. The custom base comprised either the light-cured or thermally-cured material attached to the bracket base and prepared in the laboratory, the whole unit later being bonded to the natural teeth. Thirty consecutively treated patients had fixed appliances fitted in both arches, with Spirit MB brackets on the maxillary anterior teeth, and metal brackets on the maxillary posterior and all mandibular teeth. All brackets were bonded using either the LC or TC method. All procedures and treatment was by the same operator, using identical techniques. Observation was for six months. All bonding failures were recorded. The results indicated no significant differences in the retention rates of either of the custom-base materials when used with metal brackets. However, the Spirit MB brackets exhibited a significantly higher bonding failure rate when a TC custom base was used. It was therefore concluded that either material could be used in the indirect bonding of metal brackets, and that LC custom bases should be used in the indirect bonding of Spirit MB brackets.
本研究比较了在间接粘结程序中，附着于金属微型钻石托槽和透明斯普瑞特MB托槽上的热固化（TC）和光固化（LC）定制基底的保留率。定制基底由附着于托槽基底并在实验室制备的光固化或热固化材料组成，整个单元随后粘结到天然牙上。30例连续接受治疗的患者在上下牙弓均安装了固定矫治器，上颌前牙使用斯普瑞特MB托槽，上颌后牙和所有下颌牙使用金属托槽。所有托槽均采用LC或TC方法粘结。所有程序和治疗均由同一名操作者使用相同技术进行。观察期为6个月。记录所有粘结失败情况。结果表明，两种定制基底材料与金属托槽一起使用时，其保留率无显著差异。然而，当使用TC定制基底时，斯普瑞特MB托槽的粘结失败率显著更高。因此得出结论，两种材料均可用于金属托槽的间接粘结，而LC定制基底应用于斯普瑞特MB托槽的间接粘结。
