Haque Irfanul, Sam George, Pulipaka Supraja, Mailankote Shilpa, Anand Aparna
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribag, Jharkhand, India, Phone: +91 9931915167, e-mail:
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribag, Jharkhand, India.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Aug 1;25(8):762-765. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3718.
The current study's aim was to evaluate the orthodontic bracket's bond strength employing three different bonding agents on a ceramic crown surface.
Tooth preparation on 60 permanent maxillary premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic purposes was carried out. Supragingival finishing margins were made for all samples, and ceramic (PFM) crowns were fabricated. Following crown cementation on the prepared samples, they were divided into three experimental groups randomly ( = 20) as follows: group I: Bracket bonding using Transbond XT bonding agent; group II: Bracket bonding using RelyX Unicem bonding agent; and group III: Bracket bonding using Assure Plus bonding agent. A universal testing machine was utilized to conduct the shear bond strength test. Using a stereomicroscope with a 10× magnification, adhesive remnant index scores were also used to assess the adhesive that was remaining on the surfaces. Data was recorded and statistically analyzed.
The highest bond strength was found in RelyX Unicem bonding agent (19.38 ± 0.84) followed by Transbond XT bonding agent (17.12 ± 1.04) and Assure Plus bonding agent (16.14 ± 1.02). A highly significant difference was found between Transbond XT vs RelyX Unicem groups and RelyX Unicem vs Assure Plus groups. There was no significant difference found between Transbond XT and Assure Plus ( > 0.001). Adhesive Remnant Index scores showed that score 1 was higher [7 (35%)] in the Transbond XT bonding agent group. Score 1 was 8 (40%) and score 2 was 6 (30%) in RelyX Unicem bonding agent groups and in Assure Plus bonding agent group, score 2 was higher [9 (45%)].
In conclusion, RelyX Unicem exhibited superior bond strength with ceramic crowns when compared to Assure Plus and Transbond XT bonding agents.
One of the most important steps in orthodontic therapy is bonding brackets to the teeth. A high enough and long-lasting bond between brackets and artificial surfaces is necessary for orthodontic treatment to be successful, as is the requirement for a bonding agent with the highest possible binding strength. The necessity for a more dependable process to glue the artificial crown surface has arisen due to the rise in adult patients seeking fixed orthodontic treatment. How to cite this article: Brajendu, Haque I, Sam G, et al. Assessment of the Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket on Ceramic Crown Surface Using Three Various Bonding Agents: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):762-765.
本研究旨在评估三种不同粘结剂在陶瓷冠表面的正畸托槽粘结强度。
选取60颗因正畸拔除的上颌恒前磨牙进行牙体预备。所有样本均制作龈上边缘，制作陶瓷（烤瓷熔附金属）冠。在制备好的样本上粘结冠后，将其随机分为三个实验组（每组n = 20）：第一组：使用Transbond XT粘结剂粘结托槽；第二组：使用RelyX Unicem粘结剂粘结托槽；第三组：使用Assure Plus粘结剂粘结托槽。使用万能试验机进行剪切粘结强度测试。使用放大倍数为10倍的体视显微镜，通过粘结剂残留指数评分评估残留在表面的粘结剂。记录数据并进行统计学分析。
RelyX Unicem粘结剂的粘结强度最高（19.38 ± 0.84），其次是Transbond XT粘结剂（17.12 ± 1.04）和Assure Plus粘结剂（16.14 ± 1.02）。Transbond XT组与RelyX Unicem组以及RelyX Unicem组与Assure Plus组之间存在高度显著差异。Transbond XT组与Assure Plus组之间无显著差异（P > 0.001）。粘结剂残留指数评分显示，Transbond XT粘结剂组中1分的比例更高[7例（35%）]。RelyX Unicem粘结剂组中1分的比例为8例（40%），2分的比例为6例（30%）；Assure Plus粘结剂组中2分的比例更高[9例（45%）]。
总之，与Assure Plus和Transbond XT粘结剂相比，RelyX Unicem与陶瓷冠的粘结强度更高。
正畸治疗中最重要的步骤之一是将托槽粘结到牙齿上。托槽与人工表面之间足够高且持久的粘结对于正畸治疗的成功至关重要，这就要求粘结剂具有尽可能高的粘结强度。由于寻求固定正畸治疗的成年患者数量增加，因此需要一种更可靠的方法来粘结人工冠表面。如何引用本文：Brajendu, Haque I, Sam G,等。使用三种不同粘结剂评估正畸托槽在陶瓷冠表面的粘结强度：一项对比研究。《当代牙科实践杂志》2024；25(8):762 - 765。
