Patcas Raphael, Zinelis Spiros, Eliades George, Eliades Theodore
Senior research and teaching associate, Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Assistant professor, Department of Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015 Apr;147(4 Suppl):S64-75. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.014.
The purposes of this study were to characterize enamel surfaces treated with sandblasting, acid etching, or sandblasting followed by acid etching for bonding of orthodontic adhesives and to evaluate the enamel-adhesive interfaces.
Buccal premolar surfaces were sandblasted, acid etched, sandblasted and subsequently acid etched, or left intact. For 2 treatments (acid etching and sandblasting plus acid etching), orthodontic brackets were bonded for resin infiltration assessment. Surface roughness and enamel loss were evaluated by optical profilometry, and surface morphology and elemental composition were examined by low-vacuum scanning electron microscope/energy dispersive x-ray analysis, whereas interfacial resin infiltration was assessed by high-vacuum scanning electron microscopy. Differences were statistically analyzed by 1-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison tests or t tests (α = 0.05).
The sandblasted and sandblasted-plus-acid-etched groups showed higher surface roughness values than the acid-etched group. Sandblasting plus acid etching removed more enamel than did sandblasting or acid etching alone. Sandblasting plus acid etching demonstrated a more uniform type I etching pattern, without alumina particles implanted in the enamel, unlike sandblasting. No difference was found in the extent of resin infiltration between the bonded acid-etched and sandblasted-plus-acid-etched groups, although the latter showed improved infiltration characteristics.
Sandblasting-plus-acid-etching treatment creates a rough enamel surface, typical of type I etching, with the greatest extent of enamel loss, free of alumina interferences, demonstrating the same extent of resin infiltration as acid etching, but exhibiting improved infiltration quality.
本研究的目的是对经喷砂、酸蚀或喷砂后再酸蚀处理的牙釉质表面进行表征，以用于正畸粘合剂的粘结，并评估牙釉质与粘合剂的界面。
对颊侧前磨牙表面进行喷砂、酸蚀、先喷砂后酸蚀或不做处理。对于两种处理方式（酸蚀和喷砂加酸蚀），粘结正畸托槽以评估树脂渗入情况。通过光学轮廓仪评估表面粗糙度和牙釉质损失，通过低真空扫描电子显微镜/能量色散X射线分析检查表面形态和元素组成，而通过高真空扫描电子显微镜评估界面树脂渗入情况。差异采用单因素方差分析以及Tukey-Kramer多重比较检验或t检验进行统计学分析（α = 0.05）。
喷砂组和喷砂加酸蚀组的表面粗糙度值高于酸蚀组。喷砂加酸蚀去除的牙釉质比单独喷砂或酸蚀更多。与喷砂不同，喷砂加酸蚀呈现出更均匀的I型酸蚀模式，牙釉质中没有植入氧化铝颗粒。粘结的酸蚀组和喷砂加酸蚀组之间在树脂渗入程度上没有差异，尽管后者显示出更好的渗入特性。
喷砂加酸蚀处理产生了粗糙的牙釉质表面，这是I型酸蚀的典型特征，牙釉质损失程度最大，且没有氧化铝干扰，显示出与酸蚀相同的树脂渗入程度，但渗入质量有所提高。
