Arshya A Kumar, Ravindra Kumar Jain, T R Prasanna Aravind
{"title":"单组分粘合剂支架粘接失败率的体内比较评估。","authors":"Arshya A Kumar, Ravindra Kumar Jain, T R Prasanna Aravind","doi":"10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_44_23","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-component adhesives do not require the application of a primer on the enamel surface that has been etched and has been reported to have acceptable shear bond strengths on <i>in vitro</i> evaluation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This split-mouth study aimed to examine and assess the rates of bracket bond failure of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-based (Aqualine LC) and bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA)-based (Orthofix SPA) single-component adhesives used to bond orthodontic brackets over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vivo</i> study involved the participation of 50 adult subjects, with 1080 metallic brackets directly bonded to the labial/facial surface in a split-mouth design. After 6 months of treatment, 49 patients with 490 brackets bonded using a HEMA-based adhesive and 490 brackets bonded using a BisGMA-based adhesive were evaluated for bracket bond failures. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were done to compare the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall bracket bond failure rate (BFR) with single-component adhesives was 6.02%. Bracket BFRs of HEMA-based and BisGMA-based adhesives were 4.16% and 7.8%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Significant differences in BFRs between maxillary teeth (4.28%) and mandibular teeth (7.75%) were noted (<i>P</i> < 0.05). No significant differences in bond failures between either side or region were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bond failures were more in brackets bonded with BisGMA-based adhesive (Orthofix SPA) compared with HEMA-based adhesive (Aqualine LC). Bond failures were less in the maxillary arch.</p>","PeriodicalId":47247,"journal":{"name":"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry","volume":"14 2","pages":"105-111"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141899/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"<i>In vivo</i> comparative assessment of bracket bond failure rates of single-component adhesives.\",\"authors\":\"Arshya A Kumar, Ravindra Kumar Jain, T R Prasanna Aravind\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_44_23\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Single-component adhesives do not require the application of a primer on the enamel surface that has been etched and has been reported to have acceptable shear bond strengths on <i>in vitro</i> evaluation.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>This split-mouth study aimed to examine and assess the rates of bracket bond failure of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-based (Aqualine LC) and bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA)-based (Orthofix SPA) single-component adhesives used to bond orthodontic brackets over 6 months.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vivo</i> study involved the participation of 50 adult subjects, with 1080 metallic brackets directly bonded to the labial/facial surface in a split-mouth design. After 6 months of treatment, 49 patients with 490 brackets bonded using a HEMA-based adhesive and 490 brackets bonded using a BisGMA-based adhesive were evaluated for bracket bond failures. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were done to compare the results.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall bracket bond failure rate (BFR) with single-component adhesives was 6.02%. Bracket BFRs of HEMA-based and BisGMA-based adhesives were 4.16% and 7.8%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (<i>P</i> < 0.05). Significant differences in BFRs between maxillary teeth (4.28%) and mandibular teeth (7.75%) were noted (<i>P</i> < 0.05). No significant differences in bond failures between either side or region were noted.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Bond failures were more in brackets bonded with BisGMA-based adhesive (Orthofix SPA) compared with HEMA-based adhesive (Aqualine LC). Bond failures were less in the maxillary arch.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47247,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"14 2\",\"pages\":\"105-111\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11141899/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_44_23\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.jispcd_44_23","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
In vivo comparative assessment of bracket bond failure rates of single-component adhesives.
Background: Single-component adhesives do not require the application of a primer on the enamel surface that has been etched and has been reported to have acceptable shear bond strengths on in vitro evaluation.
Aim: This split-mouth study aimed to examine and assess the rates of bracket bond failure of hydroxyethyl methacrylate (HEMA)-based (Aqualine LC) and bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA)-based (Orthofix SPA) single-component adhesives used to bond orthodontic brackets over 6 months.
Materials and methods: This in vivo study involved the participation of 50 adult subjects, with 1080 metallic brackets directly bonded to the labial/facial surface in a split-mouth design. After 6 months of treatment, 49 patients with 490 brackets bonded using a HEMA-based adhesive and 490 brackets bonded using a BisGMA-based adhesive were evaluated for bracket bond failures. Descriptive statistics and chi-square tests were done to compare the results.
Results: The overall bracket bond failure rate (BFR) with single-component adhesives was 6.02%. Bracket BFRs of HEMA-based and BisGMA-based adhesives were 4.16% and 7.8%, respectively, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Significant differences in BFRs between maxillary teeth (4.28%) and mandibular teeth (7.75%) were noted (P < 0.05). No significant differences in bond failures between either side or region were noted.
Conclusion: Bond failures were more in brackets bonded with BisGMA-based adhesive (Orthofix SPA) compared with HEMA-based adhesive (Aqualine LC). Bond failures were less in the maxillary arch.
期刊介绍:
It is a journal aimed for research, scientific facts and details covering all specialties of dentistry with a good determination for exploring and sharing the knowledge in the medical and dental fraternity. The scope is therefore huge covering almost all streams of dentistry - starting from original studies, systematic reviews, narrative reviews, very unique case reports. Journal scope is not limited to these subjects and is more wider covering all specialities of dentistry follows: -Preventive and Community dentistry (Dental public health)- Endodontics- Oral and maxillofacial pathology- Oral and maxillofacial radiology- Oral and maxillofacial surgery (also called oral surgery)- Orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics- Periodontology (also called periodontics)- Pediatric dentistry (also called pedodontics)- Prosthodontics (also called prosthetic dentistry)- Oral medicine- Special needs dentistry (also called special care dentistry)- Oral Biology- Forensic odontology- Geriatric dentistry or Geriodontics- Preventive and Social Medicine (Public health)- Our journal appreciates research articles pertaining with advancement of dentistry, preventive and community dentistry including oral epidemiology, oral health services research, oral health education and promotion, behavioral sciences related to dentistry, dental jurisprudence, ethics and oral health, economics, and quality assessment, recent advances in preventive dentistry and community dentistry.