首页> 外文期刊>Angle Orthodontist >Evaluation of nonrinse conditioning solution and a compomer as an alternative method of bonding orthodontic bracket.
【24h】

Evaluation of nonrinse conditioning solution and a compomer as an alternative method of bonding orthodontic bracket.

机译:评价非冲洗调理溶液和复合物,作为粘合正畸托槽的替代方法。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

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 are an aim of current research. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of using two enamel conditioners and adhesives on the shear bond strength and bracket failure location. Forty freshly extracted human molars were pumiced and randomly divided into two groups of 20 teeth. Metal orthodontic brackets were bonded to the enamel surface by one of two protocols: 37% phosphoric acid with a composite adhesive (Transbond XT) or a nonrinse conditioner with a compomer adhesive (Dyract flow). The teeth were mounted in phenolic rings and stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. A Zwick Universal Testing Machine was used to determine shear bond strengths in MegaPascals. The residual adhesive on the enamel surface was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index. Student t-test and chi2-test were used to compare the two groups. Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05. The results of the t-tests indicated that there were significant differences between the two adhesive systems (t = 11.18 and P = .001) with the nonrinse conditioner/compomer system having lower shear bond strength (X = 1.7 +/- 0.9 MPa) than the phosphoric acid/composite adhesive (X = 10.4 +/- 2.8 MPa). The results of the Chi Square test evaluating the residual adhesives on the enamel surfaces also revealed significant differences between the two groups (chi2 = 7.62, P = .022). In conclusion, a nonrinse conditioner used with a compomer adhesive had significantly lower shear bond strength than a phosphoric acid/composite adhesive system.
机译:正畸托槽粘结和脱粘结过程中釉质表面的损坏是临床关注的问题。当前研究的目的是在保持临床上有用的粘合强度的同时,最小化釉质表面损伤的替代粘合方法。这项研究的目的是比较使用两种搪瓷调理剂和粘合剂对剪切粘结强度和托槽破坏位置的影响。取四十颗新鲜提取的人类磨牙,随机分为两组,每组20颗牙齿。通过以下两种方法之一将金属正畸托槽粘结到牙釉质表面:使用复合粘合剂(Transbond XT)的37%磷酸或使用复合粘合剂的非漂洗护发素(Dyract flow)。将牙齿固定在酚醛环中,并在37摄氏度的去离子水中保存24小时。使用Zwick通用测试机确定兆帕斯卡的剪切粘结强度。使用粘合残余指数评估搪瓷表面上的残留粘合剂。使用学生t检验和chi2检验比较两组。显着性预先确定为P <或= 0.05。 t检验的结果表明,两种粘合剂体系之间存在显着差异(t = 11.18和P = .001),其中非漂洗型调理剂/复合体系的剪切粘合强度较低(X = 1.7 +/- 0.9 MPa)比磷酸/复合粘合剂(X = 10.4 +/- 2.8 MPa)高。卡方检验评估牙釉质表面残留胶粘剂的结果也表明两组之间存在显着差异(chi2 = 7.62,P = .022)。总之,与复合胶粘剂一起使用的非漂洗护发素的剪切粘合强度明显低于磷酸/复合胶粘剂体系。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号