首页> 外文期刊>European journal of orthodontics >Microleakage between composite-wire and composite-enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 1: comparison of three composites.
【24h】

Microleakage between composite-wire and composite-enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 1: comparison of three composites.

机译:挠性螺旋线固定器的复合线和复合瓷漆界面之间的微泄漏。第1部分:三种复合材料的比较。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

The aim of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in microleakage between composite-enamel and composite-wire interfaces, when different composites are used. Forty-five freshly extracted human mandibular incisors separated into three groups were used in the study. Multi-stranded 0.0215 inch diameter wire was bonded to enamel using two conventional (Transbond XT and Transbond LR) and a flowable (Venus Flow) orthodontic composite. The specimens were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5 per cent basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage at the composite-enamel and composite-wire interfaces from the mesial and distal margins. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with a Bonferroni correction. Little or no microleakage was observed between the composite-enamel interfaces for the three investigated composites, and any difference was not statistically significant. However, statistically significant differences were found between microleakage at the composite-wire interface for both the conventional and flowable composite groups (P < 0.001). Flowable composite showed the highest leakage (mean: 4.8 +/- 0.8 mm), while Transbond XT (mean: 0.5 +/- 0.3 mm) and Transbond LR (mean: 1.1 +/- 1.2 mm) showed significantly lower and comparable results. The amount of microleakage at the wire-composite interface was significantly greater than that at the enamel-composite interface of flexible spiral wire retainers (FSWRs). The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Flowable composites may not be appropriate for bonding FSWRs.
机译:这项研究的目的是检验以下假设:当使用不同的复合材料时,复合材料搪瓷和复合金属丝界面之间的微渗漏没有差异。该研究使用了四十五个新鲜提取的人类下颌切牙,分为三组。使用两种常规的(Transbond XT和Transbond LR)和可流动的(Venus Flow)正畸复合材料将多股0.0215英寸直径的导线粘结到搪瓷上。样品用指甲油密封,用0.5%的碱性品红染色24小时,切片并在体视显微镜下检查,并在中釉和远中边缘的复合釉质和复合线界面处进行微渗漏评分。统计学分析使用具有Bonferroni校正的Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney U检验进行。对于三种被研究的复合材料,在复合材料-搪瓷界面之间几乎没有观察到微泄漏,也没有观察到微泄漏,任何差异在统计学上均无统计学意义。然而,对于传统的和可流动的复合材料组,复合材料线界面处的微渗漏之间存在统计学上的显着差异(P <0.001)。可流动的复合材料显示出最高的泄漏(平均值:4.8 +/- 0.8毫米),而Transbond XT(平均值:0.5 +/- 0.3毫米)和Transbond LR(平均值:1.1 +/- 1.2毫米)显示出更低的可比结果。钢丝复合材料界面处的微渗漏量明显大于柔性螺旋线固定器(FSWR)的搪瓷复合材料界面处的微渗漏量。因此,原假设被拒绝了。可流动的复合材料可能不适用于粘结FSWR。

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