在托架移除后的清理过程中,软粘接剂可能比硬粘接剂造成更多的医源性损伤。

IF 3.2
Thomas H Butler, Paxton A Nimrod, Daranee Tantbirojn, Ayman Al Dayeh, Wanda I Claro, Antheunis Versluis
{"title":"在托架移除后的清理过程中,软粘接剂可能比硬粘接剂造成更多的医源性损伤。","authors":"Thomas H Butler, Paxton A Nimrod, Daranee Tantbirojn, Ayman Al Dayeh, Wanda I Claro, Antheunis Versluis","doi":"10.2319/032125-230.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if adhesive remnants and enamel loss after debonding and cleanup with a finishing bur were affected by hardness properties of the adhesive resins.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Stainless steel orthodontic brackets (American Orthodontics, Mini Master series) were bonded on facial surfaces of extracted premolars using a relatively soft bioactive resin (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-Restorative, Pulpdent) or harder traditional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M; N = 20/group). Bracketed teeth underwent 5000 thermocycles before brackets were debonded. Debonding surfaces were examined qualitatively and categorized by three examiners. Remaining adhesive was removed with a carbide finishing bur. Teeth were scanned with an optical scanner before brackets were bonded (baseline), after debonding, and after cleanup. Surface changes (mean thickness or depth, affected surface area, and volume) were calculated quantitatively after aligning scans to the baseline. Differences between the two groups were analyzed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test or pairwise comparison at a significance level of 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative examination of debonded surfaces did not show a significant difference (P = .7949) in adhesive remnants between groups, which was confirmed by quantitative evaluation (P > .05). After cleanup, enamel loss was significantly higher in the softer bioactive resin group (mean depth = 91 ± 16 µm, area = 24.48 ± 9.88 mm2) than the harder traditional adhesive (mean depth = 66 ± 9 µm, area = 6.34 ± 4.41 mm2; P < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The likelihood of adhesive remnants after debonding a bracket bonded with the bioactive resin was similar to traditional adhesive. However, enamel loss from cleaning up with a finishing bur was higher for the softer bioactive resin.</p>","PeriodicalId":94224,"journal":{"name":"The Angle orthodontist","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Soft adhesives may cause more iatrogenic damage than hard adhesives during cleanup following bracket removal.\",\"authors\":\"Thomas H Butler, Paxton A Nimrod, Daranee Tantbirojn, Ayman Al Dayeh, Wanda I Claro, Antheunis Versluis\",\"doi\":\"10.2319/032125-230.1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To determine if adhesive remnants and enamel loss after debonding and cleanup with a finishing bur were affected by hardness properties of the adhesive resins.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Stainless steel orthodontic brackets (American Orthodontics, Mini Master series) were bonded on facial surfaces of extracted premolars using a relatively soft bioactive resin (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-Restorative, Pulpdent) or harder traditional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M; N = 20/group). Bracketed teeth underwent 5000 thermocycles before brackets were debonded. Debonding surfaces were examined qualitatively and categorized by three examiners. Remaining adhesive was removed with a carbide finishing bur. Teeth were scanned with an optical scanner before brackets were bonded (baseline), after debonding, and after cleanup. Surface changes (mean thickness or depth, affected surface area, and volume) were calculated quantitatively after aligning scans to the baseline. Differences between the two groups were analyzed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test or pairwise comparison at a significance level of 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Qualitative examination of debonded surfaces did not show a significant difference (P = .7949) in adhesive remnants between groups, which was confirmed by quantitative evaluation (P > .05). After cleanup, enamel loss was significantly higher in the softer bioactive resin group (mean depth = 91 ± 16 µm, area = 24.48 ± 9.88 mm2) than the harder traditional adhesive (mean depth = 66 ± 9 µm, area = 6.34 ± 4.41 mm2; P < .0001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The likelihood of adhesive remnants after debonding a bracket bonded with the bioactive resin was similar to traditional adhesive. However, enamel loss from cleaning up with a finishing bur was higher for the softer bioactive resin.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94224,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Angle orthodontist\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2319/032125-230.1\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Angle orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/032125-230.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:确定粘接树脂的硬度是否会影响粘接残留物和牙釉质脱落。材料与方法:采用较软的生物活性树脂(ACTIVA bioactive - restorative, Pulpdent)或较硬的传统粘接剂(Transbond XT, 3M; N = 20/组)将不锈钢正畸托槽(American Orthodontics, Mini Master系列)粘接在拔牙前磨牙的表面。在托架脱粘之前,托架牙齿经历了5000次热循环。对脱粘表面进行定性检查,并由三名检查人员进行分类。剩余的胶粘剂用硬质合金抛光锉去除。在托槽粘接前(基线)、粘接后和清洁后,用光学扫描仪扫描牙齿。将扫描与基线对齐后,定量计算表面变化(平均厚度或深度、受影响的表面积和体积)。两组间差异采用Mann-Whitney u检验或两两比较进行统计学分析,显著性水平为0.05。结果:两组间脱粘面定性检查无显著性差异(P = 0.7949),定量评价证实了这一点(P = 0.05)。清洁后,软质生物活性树脂组(平均深度= 91±16µm,面积= 24.48±9.88 mm2)的牙釉质损失明显高于硬质传统粘接剂组(平均深度= 66±9µm,面积= 6.34±4.41 mm2, P < 0.0001)。结论:生物活性树脂粘接支架脱粘后粘接剂残留的可能性与传统粘接剂相似。然而,使用软质生物活性树脂的牙釉质损失更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Soft adhesives may cause more iatrogenic damage than hard adhesives during cleanup following bracket removal.

Objectives: To determine if adhesive remnants and enamel loss after debonding and cleanup with a finishing bur were affected by hardness properties of the adhesive resins.

Materials and methods: Stainless steel orthodontic brackets (American Orthodontics, Mini Master series) were bonded on facial surfaces of extracted premolars using a relatively soft bioactive resin (ACTIVA BioACTIVE-Restorative, Pulpdent) or harder traditional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M; N = 20/group). Bracketed teeth underwent 5000 thermocycles before brackets were debonded. Debonding surfaces were examined qualitatively and categorized by three examiners. Remaining adhesive was removed with a carbide finishing bur. Teeth were scanned with an optical scanner before brackets were bonded (baseline), after debonding, and after cleanup. Surface changes (mean thickness or depth, affected surface area, and volume) were calculated quantitatively after aligning scans to the baseline. Differences between the two groups were analyzed statistically with Mann-Whitney U-test or pairwise comparison at a significance level of 0.05.

Results: Qualitative examination of debonded surfaces did not show a significant difference (P = .7949) in adhesive remnants between groups, which was confirmed by quantitative evaluation (P > .05). After cleanup, enamel loss was significantly higher in the softer bioactive resin group (mean depth = 91 ± 16 µm, area = 24.48 ± 9.88 mm2) than the harder traditional adhesive (mean depth = 66 ± 9 µm, area = 6.34 ± 4.41 mm2; P < .0001).

Conclusions: The likelihood of adhesive remnants after debonding a bracket bonded with the bioactive resin was similar to traditional adhesive. However, enamel loss from cleaning up with a finishing bur was higher for the softer bioactive resin.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信