Filho Mário Vedovello, Martins Suzy H A, Valdrighi Heloísa C, Vedovello Silvia Amélia S, Kuramae Mayury, Lucato Adriana Simoni, Boeck Eloisa Marcantonio, Martins Luis Roberto Marcondes
Centro Universitário Hermínio Ometto, Araras, SP, Brazil.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2010 Jan 1;11(1):E041-8.
The aims of this study were to evaluate the prevention of enamel demineralization and the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with fluoride and no fluoride conventional and self-etching adhesives and to analyze the characteristics of enamel near the bond area using a polarized light microscope (PLM) following demineralization and remineralization cycling (Des Re).
Fifty bovine incisors were selected and divided into five groups according to the adhesive system used during the bonding process: G1, Transbond XT Adhesive; G2, Single Bond 2 Adhesive; G3, Optibond Solo Plus; G4, Clearfil SE Bond; and G5, Clearfil Protect Bond. Transbond XT was used to fix the brackets to the teeth in all groups. After bonding, the groups were separated into cycling and control subgroups. The specimens were submitted to SBS testing and evaluated under a PLM. The results were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc tests (p<.05).
There were no significant differences for SBS after Des-Re cycling. The Clearfil Protect Bond showed the SBS to be statistically lower than the other adhesives used for the control groups. After a cariogenic challenge, the Single Bond adhesive showed an SBS significantly lower than Transbond XT. The Des-Re cycling increased the enamel demineralization induced after the cariogenic challenge.
The cariogenic challenge did not reduce the SBS. Optibond Solo Plus and Transbond XT adhesives presented the highest SBS while Clearfil Protect Bond had the lowest. The PLM showed that the cariogenic challenge increased the enamel demineralization for all adhesives evaluated, independent of the presence of fluoride.
An alternative material with the ability to prevent enamel demineralization should be used in orthodontic patients due to the higher accumulation of plaque around orthodontic brackets.
本研究旨在评估使用含氟和不含氟的传统及自酸蚀粘结剂粘结正畸托槽时对牙釉质脱矿的预防作用以及剪切粘结强度(SBS),并在脱矿和再矿化循环(Des Re)后使用偏光显微镜(PLM)分析粘结区域附近牙釉质的特征。
选取50颗牛切牙,根据粘结过程中使用的粘结系统分为五组:G1,Transbond XT粘结剂;G2,Single Bond 2粘结剂;G3,Optibond Solo Plus;G4,Clearfil SE Bond;G5,Clearfil Protect Bond。所有组均使用Transbond XT将托槽固定在牙齿上。粘结后,将各组分为循环和对照亚组。对标本进行SBS测试并在PLM下评估。结果进行方差分析和Tukey事后检验(p<0.05)。
Des-Re循环后SBS无显著差异。Clearfil Protect Bond显示其SBS在统计学上低于对照组使用的其他粘结剂。在致龋刺激后,Single Bond粘结剂的SBS显著低于Transbond XT。Des-Re循环增加了致龋刺激后诱导的牙釉质脱矿。
致龋刺激并未降低SBS。Optibond Solo Plus和Transbond XT粘结剂的SBS最高,而Clearfil Protect Bond最低。PLM显示,致龋刺激增加了所有评估粘结剂的牙釉质脱矿,与氟的存在无关。
由于正畸托槽周围牙菌斑积累较多,正畸患者应使用具有预防牙釉质脱矿能力的替代材料。