Thanos C E, Munholland T, Caputo A A
Am J Orthod. 1979 Apr;75(4):421-30. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(79)90164-7.
The bond strength of mesh-base and metal-base brackets to human enamel was investigated for different adhesive systems. The bond strengths were determined by means of tension, shear, and torsion tests. The data were statistically analyzed and the following conclusions were drawn: 1. An adhesive system (bracket base and adhesive) cannot be selected on the basis of one test (tension, shear, or torque) alone. The various systems generally ranked differently, depending upon the test method utilized. 2. Mesh-base brackets were more retentive than the metal-base brackets in tension, while metal-base brackets were more retentive in shear. 3. For the metal-base brackets, Bond-Eze was the most retentive material, Adaptic and Orthomite followed narrowly behind, and Genie was the least retentive. 4. For the mesh-base bracket in tension and shear, Bond-Eze, Adaptic, and Solo-Tach were the most retentive materials when used with the 60-mesh base, and Genie was the least retentive. Torsion values were not useful because of a large number of bracket wing failures.
针对不同的粘结系统，研究了网底托槽和金属底托槽与人类牙釉质之间的粘结强度。通过拉伸、剪切和扭转试验来测定粘结强度。对数据进行了统计分析，并得出以下结论：1. 不能仅根据一种试验（拉伸、剪切或扭矩）来选择粘结系统（托槽底座和粘结剂）。根据所采用的试验方法，各种系统的排名通常有所不同。2. 在拉伸试验中，网底托槽比金属底托槽的固位力更强，而在剪切试验中，金属底托槽的固位力更强。3. 对于金属底托槽，Bond-Eze是固位力最强的材料，Adaptic和Orthomite紧随其后，而Genie的固位力最弱。4. 对于网底托槽在拉伸和剪切试验中，当与60目底座一起使用时，Bond-Eze、Adaptic和Solo-Tach是固位力最强的材料，而Genie的固位力最弱。由于大量托槽翼片出现故障，扭转值没有参考价值。
