Godard Marion, Deuve Benjamin, Lopez Isabelle, Hippolyte Marie-Pascale, Barthélemi Stéphane
LISM Laboratory EA 4695 of Engineering and Biomaterial Sciences, University of Reims, 51100 Reims, France; Dental Faculty and Dental Care Center, Robert Debré Hospital, University of Reims, 51100 Reims, France.
Dental Faculty and Dental Care Center, Robert Debré Hospital, University of Reims, 51100 Reims, France; Department of Periodontology, University of Reims, 51100 Reims, France.
Int Orthod. 2017 Sep;15(3):388-404. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2017.06.003. Epub 2017 Jul 26.
The present study assessed a fracture analysis and compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of two 2-step etch-and-rinse (E&R) adhesives when bonding ceramic orthodontic brackets to bovine enamel.
Thirty healthy bovine mandibular incisors were selected and were equally and randomly assigned to 2 experimental groups. Ceramic brackets (FLI Signature Clear, RMO) were bonded onto bovine enamel using an adhesive system. In group 1 (n=15), the conventional E&R adhesive (OrthoSolo+Enlight, Ormco) was used, and in group 2 (n=15), the new E&R adhesive limited to ceramic bracket bonding (FLI ceramic adhesive: FLI sealant resin+FLI adhesive paste, RMO) was used. In order to obtain appropriate enamel surfaces, the vestibular surfaces of mandibular bovine incisors were flat ground. After bonding, all the samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 21 days and subsequently tested for SBS, using the Instron universal testing machine. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were evaluated. Failure modes were assessed using optical microscopy at magnification ×40. A statistic data analysis was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test (P<0.05).
The test showed a significant difference (P=0.00155) between the two groups for the SBS values. Group 1 had significantly higher SBS values (9.79 to 20.83MPa) than group 2 (8.45 to 13.94MPa). Analysis of the ARI scores revealed that most of the failures occurred at the enamel/adhesive interface. A statistically significant difference was found for the ARI scores between the two groups (P=0.00996). Only two fractured brackets, which remained bonded onto the bovine enamel, were reported. Both occurred in group 1.
When bonded to ceramic brackets, FLI ceramic adhesive (RMO) was demonstrated to be very predictable and safe for clinical application in enamel bonding, whereas the results obtained with the conventional adhesive system (OrthoSolo+Enlight, Ormco) were less reproducible and revealed slightly excessive shear bond strength values.
本研究评估了一种骨折分析方法，并比较了两种两步酸蚀冲洗（E&R）粘结剂在将陶瓷正畸托槽粘结到牛牙釉质上时的剪切粘结强度（SBS）。
选取30颗健康的牛下颌切牙，将其平均随机分为2个实验组。使用粘结系统将陶瓷托槽（FLI Signature Clear，RMO）粘结到牛牙釉质上。第1组（n = 15）使用传统的E&R粘结剂（OrthoSolo+Enlight，奥美科），第2组（n = 15）使用仅用于陶瓷托槽粘结的新型E&R粘结剂（FLI陶瓷粘结剂：FLI封闭剂树脂+FLI粘结剂糊剂，RMO）。为了获得合适的牙釉质表面，对牛下颌切牙的前庭表面进行平磨。粘结后，所有样本在室温下的蒸馏水中储存21天，随后使用英斯特朗万能材料试验机测试SBS。评估粘结剂残留指数（ARI）评分。使用放大倍数为×40的光学显微镜评估失败模式。使用曼-惠特尼U检验进行统计数据分析（P<0.05）。
测试表明两组的SBS值存在显著差异（P = 0.00155）。第1组的SBS值（9.79至20.83MPa）显著高于第2组（8.45至13.94MPa）。对ARI评分的分析表明，大多数失败发生在牙釉质/粘结剂界面。两组之间的ARI评分存在统计学显著差异（P = 0.00996）。仅报告了两个断裂的托槽，它们仍粘结在牛牙釉质上。两者均发生在第1组。
当粘结到陶瓷托槽上时，FLI陶瓷粘结剂（RMO）在牙釉质粘结的临床应用中被证明具有很高的可预测性和安全性，而传统粘结系统（OrthoSolo+Enlight，奥美科）获得的结果重复性较差，且显示出略微过高的剪切粘结强度值。
