Alkis Huseyin, Turkkahraman Hakan, Adanir Necdet
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel Univeristy, Isparta, Turkiye.
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Süleyman Demirel Univeristy, Isparta, Turkiye.
Eur J Dent. 2015 Jan-Mar;9(1):117-121. doi: 10.4103/1305-7456.149656.
This in vitro study aimed to compare the microleakage of orthodontic brackets between enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival margins bonded with different adhesive systems.
A total of 144 human maxillary premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons was randomly divided into four groups. Each group was then further divided into three sub-groups. Three total-etching bonding systems (Transbond XT, Greengloo and Kurasper F), three one-step self-etching bonding systems (Transbond Plus SEP, Bond Force and Clearfil S3), three two-step self-etching bonding systems (Clearfil SE Bond, Clearfil Protectbond and Clearfil Liner Bond), and three self-adhesive resin cements (Maxcem Elite, Relyx U 100 and Clearfil SA Cement) were used to bond the brackets to the teeth. After bonding, all teeth were sealed with nail varnish and stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 h. All samples were sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope to score for microleakage at the adhesive-enamel and adhesive-bracket interfaces from both occlusal and gingival margins.
Statistical analyses were performed with Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests.
The results indicate no statistically significant differences between the microleakage scores of the adhesives; microleakage was detected in all groups. Comparison of the average values of the microleakage scores in the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces indicated statistically significant differences (P < 0.05). The amount of the microleakage was higher at the enamel-adhesive interface than at the bracket-adhesive interface.
All of the brackets exhibited some amount of microleakage. This result means that microleakage does not depend on the type of adhesive used.
本体外研究旨在比较在使用不同粘结系统粘结的情况下,正畸托槽在咬合面和龈缘处的釉质 - 粘结剂界面与粘结剂 - 托槽界面的微渗漏情况。
因正畸原因拔除的144颗人类上颌前磨牙被随机分为四组。每组再进一步分为三个亚组。使用三种全酸蚀粘结系统(Transbond XT、Greengloo和Kurasper F)、三种一步法自酸蚀粘结系统(Transbond Plus SEP、Bond Force和Clearfil S3)、三种两步法自酸蚀粘结系统(Clearfil SE Bond、Clearfil Protectbond和Clearfil Liner Bond)以及三种自粘结树脂水门汀(Maxcem Elite、Relyx U 100和Clearfil SA Cement)将托槽粘结到牙齿上。粘结后,所有牙齿用指甲油密封,并用0.5%碱性品红染色24小时。所有样本均进行切片,并在体视显微镜下检查,以评估在咬合面和龈缘处的粘结剂 - 釉质界面和粘结剂 - 托槽界面的微渗漏情况并评分。
采用Kruskal - Wallis检验和Wilcoxon符号秩检验进行统计分析。
结果表明,各粘结剂的微渗漏评分之间无统计学显著差异;所有组均检测到微渗漏。釉质 - 粘结剂界面和粘结剂 - 托槽界面微渗漏评分的平均值比较显示有统计学显著差异(P < 0.05)。釉质 - 粘结剂界面的微渗漏量高于托槽 - 粘结剂界面。
所有托槽均表现出一定程度的微渗漏。这一结果意味着微渗漏并不取决于所使用的粘结剂类型。