Almoammar Salem, AlShahrani Ibrahim, Asiry Moshabab A, Duarte Simone, Janal Malvin, Khoo Edmund
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.
Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Biomed Mater Eng. 2019;30(4):439-448. doi: 10.3233/BME-191065.
Adhesion strength of orthodontic attachments to enamel should be within optimal range to resist occlusal forces and to allow debonding without enamel damage.
The present study compared the effect of non-thermal plasma (NTP) and conventional surface treatment on the adhesion strength of orthodontic bracket to enamel.
A total of 100 premolar teeth were allocated into 5 groups according to the bonding procedure followed: Group 1 (Etch, prime and composite adhesive); Group 2 (Prime and composite adhesive); Group 3 (Glass ionomer cement); Group 4 (NTP, prime and composite adhesive) and Group 5 (NTP and glass ionomer cement). Ten specimens in each group were subjected to artificial aging and the remaining ten specimens served as baseline specimens. Adhesion strength values were recorded after debonding and bond failure types were scored. Water contact angles of the NTP treated and untreated enamel surface were measured.
Group 1 specimen demonstrated highest bond strength at baseline (21.5 ± 3.01) and thermocycling (15.8 ± 2.87) and the least values were in Group 2 specimens at baseline (3.9 ± 1.01) and thermocycling (1.6 ± 0.7). Among the experimental (NTP) groups, Group 4 specimens exhibited high adhesion strength at baseline (10.2 ± 1.76) and after thermocycling (9.8 ± 2.15) compared to Group 5 specimens at baseline (10.1 ± 1.05) and thermocycling (6.5 ± 2.19). The water contact angle on untreated enamel surface was 53.1° ± 2.1° as compared to 1.4° ± 0.7° in treated surface.
Non-thermal plasma (NTP) treatment in conjunction with composite adhesives demonstrated clinically acceptable adhesion strength and was well within the optimal range (7-14 MPa) for enamel bonding.
正畸附件与牙釉质的粘结强度应处于最佳范围内，以抵抗咬合力，并能在不损伤牙釉质的情况下实现脱粘。
本研究比较了非热等离子体（NTP）和传统表面处理对正畸托槽与牙釉质粘结强度的影响。
根据后续的粘结程序，将总共100颗前磨牙分为5组：第1组（酸蚀、涂底漆和复合粘结剂）；第2组（涂底漆和复合粘结剂）；第3组（玻璃离子水门汀）；第4组（NTP、涂底漆和复合粘结剂）和第5组（NTP和玻璃离子水门汀）。每组中的10个标本进行人工老化，其余10个标本作为基线标本。脱粘后记录粘结强度值，并对粘结失败类型进行评分。测量NTP处理和未处理的牙釉质表面的水接触角。
第1组标本在基线（21.5±3.01）和热循环后（15.8±2.87）显示出最高的粘结强度，而第2组标本在基线（3.9±1.01）和热循环后（1.6±0.7）的值最低。在实验（NTP）组中，与第5组标本在基线（10.1±1.05）和热循环后（6.5±2.19）相比，第4组标本在基线（10.2±1.76）和热循环后（9.8±2.15）表现出较高的粘结强度。未处理的牙釉质表面的水接触角为53.1°±2.1°，而处理过的表面为1.4°±0.7°。
非热等离子体（NTP）处理结合复合粘结剂显示出临床上可接受的粘结强度，并且完全在牙釉质粘结的最佳范围（7-14MPa）内。
