Suppr超能文献

不同牙间洁治法的比较及磨料条的评价:扫描电镜分析。

Comparison between different interdental stripping methods and evaluation of abrasive strips: SEM analysis.

机构信息

Department of Orthodontics, Catholic University of Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy.

出版信息

Prog Orthod. 2010;11(2):127-37. doi: 10.1016/j.pio.2010.08.001. Epub 2010 Sep 16.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to evaluate the morphological effects and the surface irregularities produced by different methods of mechanical stripping (abrasive strips and burs) and chemical stripping (37% orthophosphoric acid) and the surface changes following the finishing procedures (polishing strips) or the subsequent application of sealants, in order to establish the right stripping method that can guarantee the smoothest surface. We have also analysed the level of wear on the different abrasive strips employed, according to their structure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

160 proximal surfaces of 80 sound molar teeth extracted for orthodontic and periodontal reasons, were divided into: 1 control group with non-treated enamel proximal surfaces and 5 different groups according to the stripping method used, were observed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Each one of the 5 treated groups was also divided into 3 different subgroups according to the finishing procedures or the subsequent application of sealants.

RESULTS

The finishing stage following the manual reduction proves to be fundamental in reducing the number and depth of grooves created by the stripping. After the air rotor stripping method, the use of sealants is advised in order to obtain a smoother surface. The analysis of the combinations of mechanical and chemical stripping showed unsatisfactory results. Concerning the wear of the strips, we have highlighted a different abrasion degree for the different types of strips analysed with SEM.

CONCLUSIONS

The enamel damages are limited only if the finishing procedure is applied, independently of the type of abrasive strip employed. It would be advisable, though clinically seldom possible, the use of sealants after the air rotor stripping technique.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在评估不同机械(研磨片和车针)和化学(37%磷酸)剥离方法产生的形态学效果和表面不规则性,以及在完成处理(抛光片)或随后使用密封剂后表面的变化,以确定能保证最光滑表面的正确剥离方法。我们还根据不同研磨片的结构分析了其在使用过程中的磨损程度。

材料和方法

将 80 颗因正畸和牙周原因而拔除的健康磨牙的 160 个近中面分为:1 组为未经处理的釉质近中面,5 组为不同的处理方法,用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)观察。每个处理组又根据完成处理或随后使用密封剂分为 3 个亚组。

结果

手动还原后的完成阶段对于减少剥离过程中形成的沟槽的数量和深度非常重要。在空气转子剥离方法后,建议使用密封剂以获得更光滑的表面。机械和化学联合剥离的分析结果并不理想。关于研磨片的磨损,我们用 SEM 分析了不同类型的研磨片,发现它们的磨损程度不同。

结论

如果应用完成处理程序,那么无论使用哪种研磨片,釉质损伤都是有限的。尽管在临床上很少可行,但在空气转子剥离技术后使用密封剂是明智的。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验