Cacciafesta V, Süssenberger U, Jost-Brinkmann P G, Miethke R R
Department of Orthodontics, Royal Dental College, Aarhus University, Denmark.
Eur J Orthod. 1998 Apr;20(2):177-87. doi: 10.1093/ejo/20.2.177.
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strengths of four light-cured glass ionomer cements used for direct bonding of ceramic brackets, and to compare the results with a two-paste chemically-cured composite resin. Two commercially available polycrystalline ceramic brackets, with either chemically or mechanically retentive bracket bases, were evaluated. The brackets were bonded to 100 freshly extracted bovine incisors, and, after storage in tap water at room temperature for 24 hours, they were subsequently tested in a shear mode using a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded. With the mechanically retentive base, Fuji Ortho LC produced the highest bond strength (18.50 MPa), which was not significantly different from the values achieved with Concise (14.88 MPa) (P > 0.1) and Photac Bond (13.86 Mpa) (P = 0.1). The lowest bond strength was provided by locomp A20 (5.23 MPa). With the chemically retentive base, the highest bond strength was measured with Concise (29.27 MPa), which was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than the values for Photac Bond (16.27 MPa) and Fuji Ortho LC (13.48 MPa). Again locomp A20 produced the lowest bond strength (3.21 MPa). Three cements (Dyract Ortho, locomp A20 and Fuji Ortho LC) provided higher shear bond strengths with the mechanical retention system, whereas Concise and Photac Bond gave higher strengths with the silane-treated bracket bases. However, the strengths were statistically significantly different only for locomp A20 (P = 0.001) and Concise (P = 0.001). With the mechanically retentive base, Dyract Ortho and locomp A20 failed at the enamel-adhesive interface, whereas Photac Bond and Concise debonded at the bracket-adhesive interface. Fuji Ortho LC failed at both, the bracket-adhesive (40 per cent) and the adhesive-enamel (60 per cent) interface. With the chemically retentive base, all the adhesives failed at the enamel-adhesive interface. Only one bracket fracture occurred in this study, and no enamel damage was detected.
本研究的目的是评估用于陶瓷托槽直接粘结的四种光固化玻璃离子水门汀的剪切粘结强度，并将结果与一种双糊剂化学固化复合树脂进行比较。评估了两种市售的多晶陶瓷托槽，其托槽基底具有化学或机械固位作用。将托槽粘结到100颗新鲜拔除的牛切牙上，在室温下自来水储存24小时后，随后使用万能试验机以剪切模式进行测试。记录最大粘结强度和粘结失败部位。对于机械固位基底，Fuji Ortho LC产生的粘结强度最高（18.50MPa），与Concise（14.88MPa）（P>0.1）和Photac Bond（13.86MPa）（P = 0.1）所获得的值无显著差异。Locomp A20提供的粘结强度最低（5.23MPa）。对于化学固位基底，Concise测得的粘结强度最高（29.27MPa），显著高于Photac Bond（16.27MPa）和Fuji Ortho LC（13.48MPa）的值（P<0.01）。同样，Locomp A20产生的粘结强度最低（3.21MPa）。三种水门汀（Dyract Ortho、Locomp A20和Fuji Ortho LC）在机械固位系统下提供了更高的剪切粘结强度，而Concise和Photac Bond在经硅烷处理的托槽基底上具有更高的强度。然而，仅Locomp A20（P = 0.001）和Concise（P = 0.001）的强度在统计学上有显著差异。对于机械固位基底，Dyract Ortho和Locomp A20在釉质-粘结剂界面处失败，而Photac Bond和Concise在托槽-粘结剂界面处脱粘。Fuji Ortho LC在托槽-粘结剂（40%）和粘结剂-釉质（60%）界面处均失败。对于化学固位基底，所有粘结剂均在釉质-粘结剂界面处失败。本研究中仅发生一例托槽断裂，未检测到釉质损伤。
