Arhun Neslihan, Arman Ayca, Cehreli Sevi Burçak, Arikan Serdar, Karabulut Erdem, Gülşahi Kamran
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey.
Angle Orthod. 2006 Nov;76(6):1028-34. doi: 10.2319/101805-368.
To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive.
Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 = Transbond XT + metal bracket, group 2 = Transbond XT + ceramic bracket, group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond + ceramic bracket, and group 4 = Clearfil Protect Bond + metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesive-tooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction.
All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A significant difference was observed among all groups (P < .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited significantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearfil Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive.
Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions.
评估当金属或陶瓷托槽与传统自酸蚀粘结剂和抗菌自酸蚀粘结剂粘结时,牙齿 - 粘结剂 - 托槽复合体的微渗漏情况。
将40颗新鲜拔除的人前磨牙随机分为四组,接受以下处理:第1组 = Transbond XT + 金属托槽,第2组 = Transbond XT + 陶瓷托槽,第3组 = Clearfil Protect Bond + 陶瓷托槽,第4组 = Clearfil Protect Bond + 金属托槽。光固化后,将牙齿置于蒸馏水中1个月,然后进行热循环(500次循环)。标本进一步用指甲油密封,用0.5%碱性品红染色24小时,切片并在体视显微镜下检查,对粘结剂与牙齿以及托槽与粘结剂界面从切缘和龈缘的边缘微渗漏进行评分。采用Kruskal - Wallis检验和经Bonferroni校正的Mann - Whitney U检验进行统计分析。
所有组在粘结剂与牙釉质以及托槽与粘结剂界面均显示有微渗漏。所有组在托槽与粘结剂界面的微渗漏情况存在显著差异(P < 0.05)。在使用任何一种粘结剂时,金属托槽在托槽与粘结剂界面的微渗漏均显著多于陶瓷托槽。Clearfil Protect Bond显示出与Transbond XT相似结果。Clearfil Protect Bond因其抗菌活性以及与正畸粘结剂相似的微渗漏结果,可能是托槽粘结中粘结剂的一个选择。
金属托槽在粘结剂 - 托槽界面导致更多渗漏,这可能导致临床剪切粘结强度降低和白斑病变。