Alavi Shiva, Ehteshami Ailin
Department of Orthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2019 Jul-Aug;16(4):239-244.
The aim of this study was to compare shear bond strength (SBS) and enamel surface changing of two methods of bonding in rebonding of orthodontic brackets.
In this study, 30 human premolars were randomly classified into three equal groups. Two bonding systems were applied. At first bonding, Group 1 and 2 were bonded by conventional etching and primer technique (CEP) and Group 3 by self-etching primer (SEP). Thermocycling for 5000 cycles was done. Then, 30 brackets were debonded and SBS and Adhesive remnant index (ARI) were evaluated. One sample was selected from each group, for SEM, 30 new brackets were used for rebonding. Group 1 was bonded by CEP method and Group 2 and 3 were bonded by SEP method. Thermocycling, SBS, ARI, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) were done in the same protocol of the first bonding. One-way ANOVA, two-sample -test, and Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis. < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
The mean SBS values were not significantly different between the three groups in the first bonding and rebonding stages ( = 0.22 and 0.24). Further, there was no significant difference between the first bonding and rebonding in SBS values of Groups 1, 2 and 3 ( = 0.44, = 0.60, and = 0.56). SEM examination showed obvious differences in the enamel surface between CEP and SEP samples in both first bonding and rebonding.
With regard to the advantages of SEP methods, it seems this method can be properly used for rebonding of orthodontic brackets.
本研究旨在比较两种正畸托槽重新粘结方法的剪切粘结强度(SBS)及牙釉质表面变化情况。
本研究中,30颗人类前磨牙被随机分为三组,每组数量相等。应用两种粘结系统。初次粘结时,第1组和第2组采用传统酸蚀和底漆技术(CEP)粘结,第3组采用自酸蚀底漆(SEP)粘结。进行5000次热循环。然后,拆除30个托槽并评估SBS和粘结剂残留指数(ARI)。从每组中选取一个样本进行扫描电子显微镜(SEM)检查,使用30个新托槽进行重新粘结。第1组采用CEP方法粘结,第2组和第3组采用SEP方法粘结。按照初次粘结的相同方案进行热循环、SBS、ARI及扫描电子显微镜检查。采用单因素方差分析、双样本t检验和曼 - 惠特尼U检验进行统计分析。P < 0.05被认为具有统计学意义。
在初次粘结和重新粘结阶段,三组的平均SBS值无显著差异(P = 0.22和0.24)。此外,第1、2、3组初次粘结和重新粘结的SBS值之间也无显著差异(P = 0.44、P = 0.60和P = 0.56)。SEM检查显示,在初次粘结和重新粘结过程中,CEP和SEP样本的牙釉质表面存在明显差异。
鉴于SEP方法的优势,该方法似乎可适用于正畸托槽的重新粘结。