Pus M D, Way D C
Am J Orthod. 1980 Mar;77(3):269-83. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90082-2.
An in vitro study using steel reference markers in the enamel of 100 premolars was carried out in order to determine the enamel loss resulting from each step in the placement and removal of bonded orthodontic attachments. Measurements were made by means of the optical system of a profile projector for orientation and positioning and a micrometer for quantification. Accuracy to within +/- 1 micron was achieved. The 10.7 micron of enamel lost during initial prophylaxis with bristle brush was greater than the 5.0 micron lost when a rubber cup was used, and the difference was statistically significant. A 90-second etch with phosphoric acid resulted in a mean loss of 6.9 micron, with no significant difference between liquid and gel forms. It was possible to clean up the unfilled resin with hand instruments only; this resulted in a mean enamel loss of 7.7 micron. Rotary instruments, however, were required for cleaning up filled resin. Within this group, more enamel was lost when the high-speed 7902 bur (19.2 micron) and green rubber wheel (18.4 micron) were used than when the low-speed 7111 bur (11.3 micron) was used. Total enamel loss ranged from 26.1 to 31.8 micron for unfilled resin and from 29.5 to 41.2 micron for filled resin, depending on the instrument used for prophylaxis and debonding. Twenty-seven of the teeth showed evidence of a perikymata-like structure after as much as 29 micron of enamel had been removed, questioning the reliability of anatomic landmarks as reference points in the study of enamel loss.
为了确定粘结正畸附件放置和拆除的每个步骤所导致的牙釉质损失,对100颗前磨牙牙釉质中的钢制参考标记物进行了一项体外研究。测量通过轮廓投影仪的光学系统进行定向和定位,并用千分尺进行量化。实现了±1微米以内的精度。用刷毛牙刷进行初始预防时损失的10.7微米牙釉质大于使用橡胶杯时损失的5.0微米,差异具有统计学意义。用磷酸蚀刻90秒导致平均损失6.9微米,液体和凝胶形式之间没有显著差异。仅用手动器械就可以清理未填充的树脂;这导致平均牙釉质损失7.7微米。然而,清理填充树脂需要使用旋转器械。在这一组中,使用高速7902车针(19.2微米)和绿色橡胶轮(18.4微米)时比使用低速7111车针(11.3微米)时损失的牙釉质更多。根据用于预防和脱粘所使用的器械不同,未填充树脂的牙釉质总损失范围为26.1至31.8微米,填充树脂的牙釉质总损失范围为29.5至41.2微米。在去除多达29微米的牙釉质后,27颗牙齿显示出有釉质横纹样结构的迹象,这对在牙釉质损失研究中使用解剖标志作为参考点的可靠性提出了质疑。