Signorelli Michael D, Kao Elizabeth, Ngan Peter W, Gladwin Marcia A
US Air Force, Bitburg, Germany.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Feb;129(2):277-82. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.07.043.
This study assessed in-vitro shear bond strength and in-vivo survival rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with either a halogen or a plasma arc light.
Ninety extracted premolars were divided into 6 groups of 15. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to the teeth by using either a halogen light with a 20-second curing time or a plasma arc light with a 2-, 6-, or 10-second curing time. Brackets were debonded either within 30 minutes of bonding or after thermocycling for 24 hours. Bond strengths were tested on a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/minute. The bracket failure interface was measured with a modified adhesive remnant index score. Data were analyzed by using ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests. For the in-vivo study, a split-arch design was used to determine the bracket-failure rate and distribution in 25 patients. The patients were followed for a mean period of 1.1 years (386 days). Survival analysis was carried out to compare the failure rates of the 2 techniques.
No significant differences in bond strengths were found 30 minutes after bonding between the halogen light (13.6 +/- 3.8 MPa) and the plasma arc light with 2-, 6-, or 10-second curing times (9.6 +/- 2.9, 14.2 +/- 4.6, 16.0 +/- 3.0 MPa, respectively). Similar bond strengths were also found between the halogen light with a 20-second (16.1 +/- 3.6 MPa) curing time and plasma arc light with 6 seconds (18.2 +/- 4.6 MPa) of curing time after 24 hours of thermocycling. For the in-vivo study, no significant difference was found in bracket failure rates between the 2 light sources (4.9% in both groups). No significant differences were found between ARI scores for the halogen light and the plasma arc light at either 30 minutes or 24 hours after debonding.
These results indicate that the plasma arc light with a 6-second curing time can produce similar bond strength and bracket-failure rates as the halogen light that requires a longer curing time.
本研究评估了用卤素灯或等离子弧光粘结的正畸托槽的体外剪切粘结强度和体内存活率。
90颗拔除的前磨牙被分为6组，每组15颗。使用固化时间为20秒的卤素灯或固化时间为2秒、6秒或10秒的等离子弧光将不锈钢托槽粘结到牙齿上。托槽在粘结后30分钟内或热循环24小时后脱粘。在测试机上以1毫米/分钟的十字头速度测试粘结强度。用改良的粘结剂残留指数评分测量托槽失败界面。数据采用方差分析和Tukey-Kramer多重比较检验进行分析。对于体内研究，采用分牙弓设计来确定25例患者的托槽失败率和分布情况。对患者进行了平均1.1年（386天）的随访。进行生存分析以比较两种技术的失败率。
粘结后30分钟，卤素灯（13.6±3.8兆帕）与固化时间为2秒、6秒或10秒的等离子弧光（分别为9.6±2.9、14.2±4.6、16.0±3.0兆帕）之间的粘结强度无显著差异。热循环24小时后，固化时间为20秒的卤素灯（16.1±3.6兆帕）与固化时间为6秒的等离子弧光（18.2±4.6兆帕）之间也发现了相似的粘结强度。对于体内研究，两种光源之间的托槽失败率无显著差异（两组均为4.9%）。脱粘后30分钟或24小时，卤素灯和等离子弧光的ARI评分之间无显著差异。
这些结果表明，固化时间为6秒的等离子弧光可产生与需要更长固化时间的卤素灯相似的粘结强度和托槽失败率。
