Olsen M E, Bishara S E, Damon P, Jakobsen J R
Orthodontic Department, Indiana University, USA.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 May;111(5):498-501. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70286-5.
Damage to the enamel surface during bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets is a clinical concern. Alternative bonding methods that minimize enamel surface damage while maintaining a clinically useful bond strength is an aim of current research. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on bond strength and bracket failure location of two adhesives (System 1+ and Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M Dental Products Division) and two enamel conditioners (37% phosphoric acid and 10% maleic acid). Forty-eight freshly extracted human premolars were pumiced and divided into four groups of 12 teeth, and metal orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface by one of four protocols: (1) System 1+ and phosphoric acid, (2) Scotchbond and phosphoric acid, (3) System 1+ and maleic acid, and (4) Scotchbond and maleic acid. After bracket attachment, the teeth were mounted in phenolic rings and stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 72 hours. A Zwick universal testing machine (Zwick GmbH & Co.) was used to determine shear bond strengths. The residual adhesive on the enamel surface was evaluated with the Adhesive Remnant Index. The analysis of variance was used to compare the four groups. Significance was predetermined at p < or = 0.05. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in bond strength among the four groups (p = 0.386). The results of the Chi square test, evaluating the residual adhesives on the enamel surfaces, revealed significant differences among the four groups (mean 2 = 0.005). A Duncan multiple range test revealed the difference occurred between the phosphoric acid and maleic acid groups, with maleic acid having bond failures at the enamel-adhesive interface. In conclusion, the use of Scotchbond Multipurpose and/or maleic acid does not significantly effect bond strength, however, the use of maleic acid resulted in an unfavorable bond failure location.
正畸托槽粘接和脱粘过程中牙釉质表面的损伤是一个临床关注点。在保持临床可用粘接强度的同时尽量减少牙釉质表面损伤的替代粘接方法是当前研究的一个目标。本研究的目的是比较两种粘合剂（System 1+和Scotchbond Multipurpose，3M牙科产品部）和两种牙釉质调节剂（37%磷酸和10%马来酸）对粘接强度和托槽失效位置的影响。48颗新鲜拔除的人前磨牙经打磨后分为四组，每组12颗牙，通过以下四种方案之一将金属正畸托槽附着于牙釉质表面：（1）System 1+和磷酸，（2）Scotchbond和磷酸，（3）System 1+和马来酸，以及（4）Scotchbond和马来酸。托槽附着后，将牙齿安装在酚醛环中，并在37℃的去离子水中储存72小时。使用Zwick万能试验机（Zwick GmbH & Co.）测定剪切粘接强度。用粘接剂残留指数评估牙釉质表面的残留粘接剂。采用方差分析比较四组。显著性预先设定为p≤0.05。结果表明，四组之间的粘接强度无显著差异（p = 0.386）。评估牙釉质表面残留粘接剂的卡方检验结果显示，四组之间存在显著差异（平均值2 = 0.005）。邓肯多重极差检验显示差异发生在磷酸组和马来酸组之间，马来酸组在牙釉质-粘接剂界面出现粘接失效。总之，使用Scotchbond Multipurpose和/或马来酸对粘接强度没有显著影响，然而，使用马来酸导致了不利的粘接失效位置。
