单组分粘合剂支架粘接失败率的体内比较评估。

IF 1.4 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:单组分粘合剂无需在已蚀刻的珐琅质表面涂抹底漆,据报道,体外评估的剪切粘合强度可以接受。目的:这项分口研究旨在检查和评估用于粘结正畸托槽的甲基丙烯酸羟乙酯(HEMA)基(Aqualine LC)和双酚 A-甲基丙烯酸缩水甘油酯(BisGMA)基(Orthofix SPA)单组分粘合剂在 6 个月内的托槽粘结失败率:这项体内研究有 50 名成年受试者参与,采用分口设计将 1080 个金属托槽直接粘结在唇/面部表面。治疗 6 个月后,对 49 名患者的 490 个托槽(使用 HEMA 型粘合剂粘接)和 490 个托槽(使用 BisGMA 型粘合剂粘接)进行了托槽粘接失败评估。对结果进行了描述性统计和卡方检验:结果:使用单组分粘合剂的总体托槽粘接失败率(BFR)为 6.02%。HEMA基和BisGMA基粘合剂的托槽粘接失败率分别为4.16%和7.8%,差异具有统计学意义(P < 0.05)。上颌牙(4.28%)和下颌牙(7.75%)之间的粘接失败率差异显著(P < 0.05)。结论:与以 HEMA 为基质的粘合剂(Aqualine LC)相比,以 BisGMA 为基质的粘合剂(Orthofix SPA)粘合的托槽粘结失败率更高。上颌牙弓的粘接失败率较低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
123
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信