Zope Amit, Zope-Khalekar Yogita, Chitko Shrikant S, Kerudi Veerendra V, Patil Harshal Ashok, Bonde Prasad Vasudeo, Jaltare Pratik, Dolas Siddhesh G
Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics, ACPM Dental College , Dhule, Maharashtra, India .
Senior Lecturer, Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, ACPM Dental College , Dhule, Maharashtra, India .
J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Dec;10(12):ZC19-ZC22. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/18842.9031. Epub 2016 Dec 1.
The self-etching primer system consists of etchant and primer dispersed in a single unit. The etching and priming are merged as a single step leading to fewer stages in bonding procedure and reduction in the number of steps that also reduces the chance of introduction of error, resulting in saving time for the clinician. It also results in smaller extent of enamel decalcification.
To compare the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of orthodontic bracket bonded with Self-Etch Primers (SEP) and conventional acid etching system and to study the surface appearance of teeth after debonding; etching with conventional acid etch and self-etch priming, using stereomicroscope.
Five Groups (n=20) were created randomly from a total of 100 extracted premolars. In a control Group A, etching of enamel was done with 37% phosphoric acid and bonding of stainless steel brackets with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California). Enamel conditioning in left over four Groups was done with self-etching primers and adhesives as follows: Group B-Transbond Plus (3M Unitek), Group C Xeno V+ (Dentsply), Group D-G-Bond (GC), Group E-One-Coat (Coltene). The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was also evaluated. Additionally, the surface roughness using profilometer were observed.
Mean SBS of Group A was 18.26±7.5MPa, Group B was 10.93±4.02MPa, Group C was 6.88±2.91MPa while of Group D was 7.78±4.13MPa and Group E was 10.39±5.22MPa respectively. In conventional group ARI scores shows that over half of the adhesive was remaining on the surface of tooth (score 1 to 3). In self-etching primer groups ARI scores show that there was no or minor amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of tooth (score 4 and 5). SEP produces a lesser surface roughness on the enamel than conventional etching. However, statistical analysis shows significant correlation (p<0.001) of bond strength with surface roughness of enamel.
All groups might show clinically useful SBS values and Transbond XT can be successfully used for bracket bonding after enamel conditioning with any of the SEPs tested. The SEPs used in Groups C (Xeno V+) and D (G-Bond) have significantly lowered SBS. Although, the values might still be clinically acceptable.
自酸蚀底漆系统由蚀刻剂和底漆分散在一个单元中组成。蚀刻和底漆处理合并为一个步骤，从而减少了粘结过程中的阶段数量，并减少了步骤数量，这也降低了引入误差的可能性，为临床医生节省了时间。它还导致牙釉质脱矿程度较小。
比较使用自酸蚀底漆（SEP）和传统酸蚀系统粘结正畸托槽的剪切粘结强度（SBS），并使用体视显微镜研究脱粘后牙齿的表面外观；用传统酸蚀和自酸蚀底漆进行蚀刻。
从总共100颗拔除的前磨牙中随机分为五组（n = 20）。在对照组A中，用37%磷酸蚀刻牙釉质，并用Transbond XT（3M Unitek，蒙罗维亚，加利福尼亚）粘结不锈钢托槽。其余四组的牙釉质预处理使用自酸蚀底漆和粘合剂，如下：B组 - Transbond Plus（3M Unitek），C组 - Xeno V +（登士柏），D组 - G - Bond（GC），E组 - One - Coat（科尔tene）。还评估了粘结剂残留指数（ARI）评分。此外，使用轮廓仪观察表面粗糙度。
A组的平均SBS为18.26±7.5MPa，B组为10.93±4.02MPa，C组为6.88±2.91MPa，D组为7.78±4.13MPa，E组为10.39±5.22MPa。在传统组中，ARI评分显示超过一半的粘结剂残留在牙齿表面（评分为1至3）。在自酸蚀底漆组中，ARI评分显示牙齿表面没有或只有少量粘结剂残留（评分为4和5）。与传统蚀刻相比，SEP在牙釉质上产生的表面粗糙度较小。然而，统计分析表明粘结强度与牙釉质表面粗糙度之间存在显著相关性（p < 0.001）。
所有组可能都显示出临床上有用的SBS值，并且在用任何测试的SEP进行牙釉质预处理后，Transbond XT可成功用于托槽粘结。C组（Xeno V +）和D组（G - Bond）中使用的SEP显著降低了SBS。尽管如此，这些值在临床上可能仍然可以接受。
