{"title":"以1型玻璃离子水门汀和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀为粘结剂的Bioflx、不锈钢冠和不锈钢带之间粘结强度的比较研究。","authors":"Divya Singh, Arathi Rao, Ramya Shenoy, Gurvinder Kaur, Baranya Shrikrishna Suprabha","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim and background: </strong>The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), <i>post-hoc</i> Tukey's test, and a <i>p</i>-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, <i>et al</i>. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(1):70-74.</p>","PeriodicalId":36045,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","volume":"18 1","pages":"70-74"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11915413/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"Divya Singh, Arathi Rao, Ramya Shenoy, Gurvinder Kaur, Baranya Shrikrishna Suprabha\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim and background: </strong>The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This <i>in vitro</i> study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), <i>post-hoc</i> Tukey's test, and a <i>p</i>-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.</p><p><strong>How to cite this article: </strong>Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, <i>et al</i>. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(1):70-74.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":36045,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"70-74\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11915413/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/2/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3026","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/2/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的和背景：在不锈钢冠（ssc）上保留带和环空间保持器决定了空间保持器的成功。使用两种广泛使用的连接剂，本研究评估了SS带与最流行的ssc以及最近发布的Bioflx冠之间的结合强度。材料与方法：体外实验48例，分为4组。使用I型玻璃离子水门合剂（GIC）和树脂改性玻璃离子水门合剂（RMGIC）在ssc和bioflex冠上固接不锈钢（SS）带。采用万能试验机对剪切粘结强度进行了测试。为确定显著性程度，采用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）、事后Tukey检验，p值维持在≤0.05。结果：SSC与RMGIC之间的剪切结合强度（0.908±0.20 MPa）显著高于SSC与GIC之间的剪切结合强度（0.362±0.21 MPa）。虽然没有统计学意义，但Bioflx冠与GIC的结合强度强于Bioflx冠与RMGIC的结合强度。结论：添加了RMGIC的SSCs与SS条带结合良好，与添加了GIC的bioflex冠的SSCs无显著性差异。在两根冠中，GIC常见内聚失败，RMGIC常见粘接失败。临床意义：本研究结果可以帮助临床医生在为ssc牙齿选择冠和修复剂时做出明智的决定。引用方式：Singh D， Rao A, Shenoy R，等。以1型玻璃离子水门汀和树脂改性玻璃离子水门汀为粘结剂的Bioflx、不锈钢冠和不锈钢带之间粘结强度的比较研究。中华临床儿科杂志，2015;18(1):70-74。
Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study.
Aim and background: The retention of the band and loop space maintainer over the stainless steel crowns (SSCs) dictates the success of the space maintainer. Using two widely used luting agents, this study assesses the binding strength between SS bands and the most popular SSCs as well as the recently released Bioflx crowns.
Materials and methods: This in vitro study consisted of 48 samples divided into four groups. Type I glass ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were used to cement stainless steel (SS) bands over SSCs and Bioflx crowns. The shear bond strength was tested using a universal testing apparatus. To determine the degree of significance, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc Tukey's test, and a p-value maintained at ≤0.05 were utilized.
Results: The shear bond strength between the SSC and RMGIC (0.908 ± 0.20 MPa) was statistically significant and higher than between the SSC and GIC (0.362 ± 0.21 MPa). Though not statistically significant, the binding strength between Bioflx crowns and GIC was stronger than between Bioflx crowns and RMGIC.
Conclusion: The SS bands bonded well to the SSCs with RMGIC, and there was no significant difference between the SSCs and Bioflx crowns with GIC as the luting agent. Cohesive failures were common with GIC, and adhesive failures were common with RMGIC in both crowns.
Clinical significance: The present study's findings can help clinicians make informed decisions when choosing crowns and luting agents for teeth with SSCs.
How to cite this article: Singh D, Rao A, Shenoy R, et al. Comparative Evaluation of the Bond Strength Between Bioflx, Stainless Steel Crowns, and Stainless Steel Bands Using Type 1 Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement as Luting Agents: An In Vitro Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2025;18(1):70-74.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
