Suppr超能文献

气涡轮机去除釉质后不同釉质抛光方法的扫描电子显微镜比较

A scanning electron microscopy comparison of enamel polishing methods after air-rotor stripping.

作者信息

Piacentini C, Sfondrini G

机构信息

Oral and Dental Research Institute, Pavia, Italy.

出版信息

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996 Jan;109(1):57-63. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(96)70163-4.

Abstract

In the last few years, orthodontic literature has shown particular interest in the interproximal enamel reduction technique described as stripping or slenderizing. Most researchers have shown, by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) studies, the difficulties encountered while attempting to remove coarse abrasions left after stripping with the first instrument. The objective of this SEM study was to compare the different polishing methods proposed in the literature and to assess the efficiency of our own procedure. For this purpose, 48 healthy human teeth (premolars and molars) were used after removal for orthodontic or periodontal reasons. The teeth were divided into eight groups of six teeth each (two molars and four premolars), and mounted on a typodont to simulate a clinical situation. Each group underwent stripping according to one of the following techniques: 16-blade tungsten carbide bur and fine and ultrafine diamond burs; coarse diamond bur and fine and ultrafine diamond burs; coarse diamond disk and Sof-Lex disks (Dental products/3M, St. Paul, Minn.); 16-blade tungsten carbide bur and phosphoric acid on finishing strip; and 8-straight blade tungsten carbide diamond bur and Sof-Lex disks. The SEM investigations demonstrated that it is not possible to eliminate, with normal polishing and cleaning methods, the furrows left on the enamel both by the diamond burs and the diamond disks and the 16-blade tungsten carbide burs. Mechanical and chemical stripping as well did not prove to be effective. By contrast, with the use of a 8-straight blade tungsten carbide bur followed by Sof-Lex disks for polishing the enamel, it is possible to obtain well-polished surfaces that many times appear smoother than the intact or untreated enamel.

摘要

在过去几年中,正畸学文献对一种被称为釉质邻面磨除术或牙体减径术的邻面釉质磨除技术表现出了特别的兴趣。大多数研究人员通过扫描电子显微镜(SEM)研究表明,在尝试去除用第一种器械进行磨除后留下的粗糙磨痕时会遇到困难。这项SEM研究的目的是比较文献中提出的不同抛光方法,并评估我们自己方法的有效性。为此,在因正畸或牙周原因拔除后,使用了48颗健康人牙(前磨牙和磨牙)。将牙齿分为八组,每组六颗牙(两颗磨牙和四颗前磨牙),并安装在牙模上以模拟临床情况。每组根据以下技术之一进行磨除:16刃碳化钨车针以及细粒度和超细粒度金刚石车针;粗粒度金刚石车针以及细粒度和超细粒度金刚石车针;粗粒度金刚石盘和Sof-Lex盘(牙科产品/3M公司,明尼苏达州圣保罗);16刃碳化钨车针并在精修条上使用磷酸;以及8刃直形碳化钨金刚石车针和Sof-Lex盘。SEM研究表明,用常规的抛光和清洁方法不可能消除金刚石车针、金刚石盘以及16刃碳化钨车针在釉质上留下的沟痕。机械和化学磨除也未被证明有效。相比之下,使用8刃直形碳化钨车针然后用Sof-Lex盘对釉质进行抛光,可以获得抛光良好的表面,很多时候这些表面看起来比完整或未处理的釉质更光滑。

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