Suppr超能文献

采用氧化铝喷砂酸蚀剂对陶瓷正畸托槽和陶瓷冠进行体外剪切粘结强度比较。

In vitro comparison of shear bond strengths of ceramic orthodontic brackets with ceramic crowns using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant.

机构信息

Private Practice of Orthodontics, 2907 Fairfield Ln., Midland, TX 79705, USA.

LSU Health Sciences Center, Department of Orthodontics, 1100 Florida Avenue, New Orleans, LA 70119, USA.

出版信息

Int Orthod. 2020 Mar;18(1):115-120. doi: 10.1016/j.ortho.2019.07.005. Epub 2019 Aug 27.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to determine if there are differences between the shear bond strengths of 3 types of ceramic brackets when bonded to different ceramic substrates using an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Substrate groups consisting of thirty-six lithium disilicate (e.max® CAD) samples and thirty-six lithium silicate infused with zirconia (CELTRA® DUO) samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a left maxillary central incisor. The surface of all samples was prepared with an aluminium oxide air abrasion etchant protocol. Each substrate group was split into three test groups (n=12). Each test group was bonded using a different brand of ceramic orthodontic bracket. Shear bond strength (SBS) testing was conducted and the mean SBS values for each group were calculated and recorded in MPa. An Adhesive Resin Index (ARI) score was also assigned to each sample to assess the location of bond failure.

RESULTS

Mean SBS of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups. Symetri brackets showed significantly higher shear bond strengths to both substrates than both of the other brackets tested. ARI scores of the e.max® CAD groups were significantly less than the CELTRA® DUO groups.

CONCLUSION

The Symetri bracket was the only bracket that was effective for both substrates (mean SBS>6mPa). The Etch Master protocol does not appear effective for e.max® CAD.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在确定使用氧化铝喷砂蚀刻剂方案将 3 种陶瓷托槽粘结到不同陶瓷基底时,其剪切粘结强度是否存在差异。

材料和方法

制作了 36 个锂硅二酸盐(e.max® CAD)样本和 36 个含氧化锆锂硅(CELTRA® DUO)样本的基底组,以复制左上中切牙的唇面。所有样本的表面均采用氧化铝喷砂蚀刻剂方案进行处理。将每个基底组分为 3 个测试组(n=12)。每个测试组使用不同品牌的陶瓷正畸托槽进行粘结。进行剪切粘结强度(SBS)测试,并计算和记录每个组的平均 SBS 值,单位为兆帕。还对每个样本分配了一个黏附树脂指数(ARI)评分,以评估粘结失败的位置。

结果

e.max® CAD 组的平均 SBS 值明显小于 CELTRA® DUO 组。Symetri 托槽对两种基底的剪切粘结强度明显高于其他两种测试的托槽。e.max® CAD 组的 ARI 评分明显小于 CELTRA® DUO 组。

结论

Symetri 托槽是唯一对两种基底均有效的托槽(平均 SBS>6mPa)。Etch Master 方案似乎对 e.max® CAD 无效。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验