Suppr超能文献

正畸托槽的重新粘结。第一部分,一项实验室与临床研究。

Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study.

作者信息

Montasser Mona A, Drummond James L, Evans Carla A

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

出版信息

Angle Orthod. 2008 May;78(3):531-6. doi: 10.2319/022307-90.1.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare rebonding of orthodontic brackets based on the hypothesis that no difference would be found between the adhesive systems with respect to shear bond strength, mode of failure, and clinical failure rates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The three adhesive systems included two self-etch primers (Transbond and M-Bond) and a conventional phosphoric acid etch (Rely-a-Bond). The sample size was 20 premolars for each adhesive system. The shear bond strength was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with the bonding/debonding procedures repeated two times after the first debonding. Bond strength, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure sites were evaluated for each debonding. Statistical analysis consisted of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Scheffè analysis. The clinical portion evaluated 15 patients over a 12-month period.

RESULTS

The mean shear bond strengths after the first, second, and third debondings for Rely-a-Bond were 8.4 +/- 1.8, 10.3 +/- 2.4, and 14.1 +/- 3.3 MPa, respectively; for Transbond 11.1 +/- 4.6, 13.6 +/- 4.5, and 12.9 +/- 4.4 MPa, respectively; and for M-Bond 8.7 +/- 2.7, 10.4 +/- 2.4, and 12.4 +/- 3.4 MPa, respectively. After the three debondings the mean shear bond strength increased significantly from the first to the third debonding for Rely-a-Bond and M-bond (P </= .001), but did not change for Transbond (P = .199).

CONCLUSIONS

The original hypothesis is not rejected. The two self-etching primers showing higher or comparable bond strength to the conventional phosphoric etch with less adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after the first debonding. With repeated bonding/debonding, the differences in the bond strength, ARI, and failure site were not significantly different. There was no difference in the clinical performance of the three adhesive systems (P = .667).

摘要

目的

基于不同粘结系统在剪切粘结强度、失效模式和临床失败率方面无差异这一假设,比较正畸托槽的重新粘结情况。

材料与方法

三种粘结系统包括两种自酸蚀底漆(Transbond和M-Bond)以及一种传统磷酸酸蚀剂(Rely-a-Bond)。每种粘结系统的样本量为20颗前磨牙。在托槽粘结24小时后测试剪切粘结强度,第一次脱粘后重复粘结/脱粘程序两次。对每次脱粘评估粘结强度、粘结剂残留指数(ARI)和失效部位。统计分析包括双向方差分析(ANOVA),随后进行Scheffè分析。临床部分在12个月内评估了15名患者。

结果

Rely-a-Bond第一次、第二次和第三次脱粘后的平均剪切粘结强度分别为8.4±1.8、10.3±2.4和14.1±3.3MPa;Transbond分别为11.1±4.6、13.6±4.5和12.9±4.4MPa;M-Bond分别为8.7±2.7、10.4±2.4和12.4±3.4MPa。三次脱粘后,Rely-a-Bond和M-Bond的平均剪切粘结强度从第一次到第三次脱粘显著增加(P≤.001),但Transbond没有变化(P = .199)。

结论

原假设未被拒绝。两种自酸蚀底漆在第一次脱粘后显示出与传统磷酸酸蚀剂更高或相当的粘结强度,且釉质表面的粘结剂残留较少。随着粘结/脱粘的重复进行,粘结强度、ARI和失效部位的差异无统计学意义。三种粘结系统的临床性能无差异(P = .667)。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验