Tahmasbi Soodeh, Shiri Amin, Badiee Mohammadreza
Department of Orthodontics, Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Dental School, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020 Jan 21;17(1):19-24. eCollection 2020 Jan-Feb.
Considering the increase in demand for orthodontic treatment in adults, bracket bond to restored teeth is a clinical challenge. This study sought to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to feldspathic porcelain using universal adhesive and conventional adhesive with and without silane application.
In this study Fifty-six feldspathic porcelain discs were roughened by bur, and 9.6% hydrofluoric acid was used for surface preparation. Samples were divided into the following four groups ( = 14): Group 1: universal adhesive, Group 2: universal adhesive/silane, Group 3: conventional adhesive, and Group 4: conventional adhesive/silane. Mandibular central incisor brackets were bonded, and SBS was measured by Instron machine. To assess the mode of failure, adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was determined. The data were analyzed using SPSS software and two-way ANOVA, Bonferroni test, and Kruskal-Wallis test ( < 0.05 considered significant).
The highest SBS was noted in the universal adhesive/silane group (12.7 MP) followed by conventional adhesive/silane (11.9 MP), conventional adhesive without silane (7.6 MP), and universal adhesive without silane (4.4 MP). In the absence of silane, the conventional adhesive yielded significantly higher SBS than universal adhesive ( = 0.03). In the presence of silane, the two adhesives showed SBS values significantly higher than the values obtained when silane was not applied, while the two adhesives were not significantly different in terms of SBS in the presence of silane ( = 0.53). Based on ARI score, there were statistically significant differences between Groups 1 and 4 ( = 0.00) and Groups 2 and 4 ( = 0.023).
Based on the current results, SBS of bracket to porcelain mainly depends on the use of silane rather than the type of adhesive. Both universal and conventional adhesives yield significantly higher SBS in the presence of silane compared to that in the absence of silane.
鉴于成人正畸治疗需求的增加,正畸托槽粘结至修复牙是一项临床挑战。本研究旨在比较使用通用型粘结剂和传统粘结剂在有或无硅烷处理的情况下,正畸托槽与长石质瓷之间的剪切粘结强度(SBS)。
在本研究中,56个长石质瓷盘用车针打磨粗糙,并使用9.6%的氢氟酸进行表面处理。样本分为以下四组(每组n = 14):第1组:通用型粘结剂;第2组:通用型粘结剂/硅烷;第3组:传统粘结剂;第4组:传统粘结剂/硅烷。粘结下颌中切牙托槽,并使用英斯特朗试验机测量SBS。为评估失败模式,确定粘结剂残留指数(ARI)评分。使用SPSS软件对数据进行分析,并采用双向方差分析、Bonferroni检验和Kruskal-Wallis检验(P < 0.05认为具有显著性)。
通用型粘结剂/硅烷组的SBS最高(12.7MPa),其次是传统粘结剂/硅烷(11.9MPa)、未使用硅烷的传统粘结剂(7.6MPa)和未使用硅烷的通用型粘结剂(4.4MPa)。在未使用硅烷的情况下,传统粘结剂产生的SBS显著高于通用型粘结剂(P = 0.03)。在使用硅烷的情况下,两种粘结剂的SBS值均显著高于未使用硅烷时获得的值,而在使用硅烷的情况下,两种粘结剂在SBS方面无显著差异(P = 0.53)。基于ARI评分,第1组和第4组(P = 0.00)以及第2组和第4组(P = 0.023)之间存在统计学显著差异。
基于当前结果,托槽与瓷之间的SBS主要取决于硅烷的使用,而非粘结剂的类型。与未使用硅烷相比,在使用硅烷的情况下,通用型粘结剂和传统粘结剂均产生显著更高的SBS。