Ulker Mustafa, Uysal Tancan, Ramoglu Sabri Ilhan, Ertas Huseyin
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey.
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):144-9. doi: 10.2319/111607-534.1.
To compare the microleakage of the enamel-adhesive-bracket complex at the occlusal and gingival margins of brackets bonded with high-intensity light curing lights and conventional halogen lights.
Forty-five freshly extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly separated into three groups of 15 teeth each. Stainless steel brackets were bonded in all groups according to the manufacturer's recommendations. Specimens (15 per group) were cured for 40 seconds with a conventional halogen light, 20 seconds with light-emitting diode (LED), and 6 seconds with plasma arc curing light (PAC). After curing, the specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic-fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both the occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
The type of light curing unit did not significantly affect the amount of microleakage at the gingival or occlusal margins of investigated interfaces (P >.05). The gingival sides in the LED and PAC groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed on occlusal sides for the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces. The halogen light source showed similar microleakage at the gingival and occlusal sides between both adhesive interfaces.
High-intensity curing units did not cause more microleakage than conventional halogen lights. This supports the use of all these curing units in routine orthodontic practice.
比较用高强度光固化灯和传统卤素灯粘结托槽时,釉质-粘结剂-托槽复合体在托槽咬合边缘和龈边缘的微渗漏情况。
45颗新鲜拔除的人上颌前磨牙随机分为三组,每组15颗。所有组均按照制造商的建议粘结不锈钢托槽。每组15个标本分别用传统卤素灯固化40秒、发光二极管(LED)固化20秒、等离子弧固化灯(PAC)固化6秒。固化后,标本用指甲油进一步密封,用0.5%碱性品红染色24小时,切片并在体视显微镜下检查,对咬合边缘和龈边缘的釉质-粘结剂界面及托槽-粘结剂界面的微渗漏进行评分。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney U检验并进行Bonferroni校正进行统计学分析。
光固化设备类型对所研究界面的龈边缘或咬合边缘的微渗漏量无显著影响(P>.05)。对于釉质-粘结剂界面和粘结剂-托槽界面,LED组和PAC组的龈侧微渗漏评分高于咬合侧。卤素光源在两个粘结界面的龈侧和咬合侧显示出相似的微渗漏情况。
高强度固化设备引起的微渗漏并不比传统卤素灯多。这支持了在常规正畸治疗中使用所有这些固化设备。