Bishara S E, Gordan V V, VonWald L, Olson M E
Orthodontic Department, College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242, USA.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Sep;114(3):243-7. doi: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70205-7.
A unique characteristic of some new etching systems is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single acidic primer solution. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects on the shear bond strength and the bracket/adhesive failure mode when an acidic primer and other enamel etchants were used to condition the enamel surface before bonding. The brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to one of four protocols following the manufacturers instructions. Group I, teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, the brackets were then bonded with System 1+ adhesive (Ormco Corporation. Orange, Calif.); group II, teeth were etched with 10% maleic acid, the brackets were also bonded with System 1+ adhesive; group III, an acidic primer that contains both the acid (phenyl-P) and the primer (hema and dimethacrylate) were placed on the enamel for 30 seconds. The adhesive used on this group was a lightly filled resin that contains Bis-GMA and HEMA. (Clearfil Liner Bond 2. J.C. Moritta, Kuraway, Japan); Group IV, the same acidic primer was used as in group II, the adhesive used was highly filled (Panavia 21. J.C. Moritta) and contains Bis-GMA. The present in vitro findings indicated that the use of acidic primers to bond orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface could provide clinically acceptable shear bond forces (x = 10.4 +/- 4.4 MPa) when used with a highly (77%) filled adhesive (Panavia 21). These debonding forces were comparable to those obtained when the enamel was conditioned with either Phosphoric (x = 11.8 +/- 4.1 MPa) or Maleic (x = 10.9 +/- 4.4 MPa) acids. With the use of a lightly (10%) filled adhesive (Clearfil Liner Bond 2), the shear bond strength was significantly lower (x = 5.9 +/- 5.6 MPa). It is of interest to note that there was a tendency to have less residual adhesive remaining on the tooth when an acid primer was used than when phosphoric and maleic acids were used. This might be of advantage to the clinician because it will require less time to clean the teeth after debonding.
一些新型酸蚀系统的一个独特特点是,它们将预处理剂和底漆结合成一种单一的酸性底漆溶液。本研究的目的是确定在粘结前使用酸性底漆和其他牙釉质酸蚀剂处理牙釉质表面时,对剪切粘结强度和托槽/粘结剂失效模式的影响。按照制造商的说明,根据四种方案之一将托槽粘结到拔除的人牙上。第一组,用37%的磷酸蚀刻牙齿,然后用System 1+粘结剂(奥美科公司,加利福尼亚州奥兰治)粘结托槽;第二组,用10%的马来酸蚀刻牙齿,托槽也用System 1+粘结剂粘结;第三组,将一种同时含有酸(苯基-P)和底漆(甲基丙烯酸羟乙酯和二甲基丙烯酸酯)的酸性底漆置于牙釉质上30秒。该组使用的粘结剂是一种轻度填充的树脂,含有双酚A甲基丙烯酸缩水甘油酯和甲基丙烯酸羟乙酯(Clearfil Liner Bond 2,日本森田株式会社);第四组,使用与第二组相同的酸性底漆,使用的粘结剂是高度填充的(Panavia F 2.0,日本森田株式会社),含有双酚A甲基丙烯酸缩水甘油酯。目前的体外研究结果表明,当与高度(77%)填充的粘结剂(Panavia F 2.0)一起使用时,使用酸性底漆将正畸托槽粘结到牙釉质表面可提供临床上可接受的剪切粘结力(x = 10.4 +/- 4.4 MPa)。这些脱粘力与用磷酸(x = 11.8 +/- 4.1 MPa)或马来酸(x = 10.9 +/- 4.4 MPa)处理牙釉质时获得的脱粘力相当。使用轻度(10%)填充的粘结剂(Clearfil Liner Bond 2)时,剪切粘结强度显著较低(x = 5.9 +/- 5.6 MPa)。值得注意的是,与使用磷酸和马来酸相比,使用酸性底漆时残留在牙齿上的粘结剂倾向于更少。这对临床医生可能有利,因为脱粘后清洁牙齿所需的时间会更少。