聚碳酸酯自连接支架的摩擦力评价。

World journal of orthodontics Pub Date : 2010-01-01
Daniel J Fernandes, José Augusto M Miguel, Catia C A Quintão, Carlos N Elias
{"title":"聚碳酸酯自连接支架的摩擦力评价。","authors":"Daniel J Fernandes,&nbsp;José Augusto M Miguel,&nbsp;Catia C A Quintão,&nbsp;Carlos N Elias","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the frictional forces generated by ceramic- (Opal, Ultradent) and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (Oyster, Gestenco) and compare the effectiveness of these ligatureless systems with glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets (Blonde, Gestenco). The hypothesis is that there is no difference between frictional forces generated by ceramic- and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve preadjusted 0.022 3 0.028-inch maxillary canine brackets were tested, divided into three groups: Opal, Oyster, and Blonde. Frictional tests were conducted with the Emic DL 10000 testing machine with a 20 N loadcell for 40 seconds at a 0.5 cm/min speed. Each bracket-wire combination was tested five times. The data generated were analyzed by parametric analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of variance indicated significant differences for the three groups (P<.01). The frictional forces of the Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets were significantly lower (37.0 ± 8.9 cN) than those of the Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (49.5 ± 10.1 cN), while the Blonde glass-fiber-reinforced conventional bracket frictional forces were 105.8 ± 6.4 cN.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate brackets produced less friction than Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate brackets. The polycarbonate ligatureless system showed significantly lower frictional forces compared to Blonde conventional polycarbonate brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. The study rejected the initial hypothesis because there are significant differences of frictional forces among the tested systems.</p>","PeriodicalId":87213,"journal":{"name":"World journal of orthodontics","volume":"11 3","pages":"250-5"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of frictional forces of polycarbonate self-ligating brackets.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel J Fernandes,&nbsp;José Augusto M Miguel,&nbsp;Catia C A Quintão,&nbsp;Carlos N Elias\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To evaluate the frictional forces generated by ceramic- (Opal, Ultradent) and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (Oyster, Gestenco) and compare the effectiveness of these ligatureless systems with glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets (Blonde, Gestenco). The hypothesis is that there is no difference between frictional forces generated by ceramic- and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Twelve preadjusted 0.022 3 0.028-inch maxillary canine brackets were tested, divided into three groups: Opal, Oyster, and Blonde. Frictional tests were conducted with the Emic DL 10000 testing machine with a 20 N loadcell for 40 seconds at a 0.5 cm/min speed. Each bracket-wire combination was tested five times. The data generated were analyzed by parametric analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Analysis of variance indicated significant differences for the three groups (P<.01). The frictional forces of the Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets were significantly lower (37.0 ± 8.9 cN) than those of the Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (49.5 ± 10.1 cN), while the Blonde glass-fiber-reinforced conventional bracket frictional forces were 105.8 ± 6.4 cN.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate brackets produced less friction than Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate brackets. The polycarbonate ligatureless system showed significantly lower frictional forces compared to Blonde conventional polycarbonate brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. The study rejected the initial hypothesis because there are significant differences of frictional forces among the tested systems.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":87213,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"World journal of orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"11 3\",\"pages\":\"250-5\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"World journal of orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"World journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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:评估陶瓷(Opal, Ultradent)和玻璃纤维增强聚碳酸酯自结扎支架(Oyster, Gestenco)产生的摩擦力,并将这些无结扎系统与玻璃纤维增强聚碳酸酯传统支架(Blonde, Gestenco)的有效性进行比较。假设陶瓷和玻璃纤维增强聚碳酸酯自结扎支架与玻璃纤维增强聚碳酸酯常规支架产生的摩擦力没有差异。方法:对12个预调整的0.022 3 0.028英寸上颌牙托进行测试,分为三组:蛋白石组、牡蛎组和金发组。使用Emic DL 10000试验机,在0.5 cm/min的速度下,用20 N的称重传感器进行40秒的摩擦试验。每个支架-钢丝组合测试5次。产生的数据采用参数方差分析(单因素方差分析)和Bonferroni检验进行分析。结果:方差分析显示三组间存在显著性差异(p结论:牡蛎玻璃纤维增强聚碳酸酯托槽比蛋白石陶瓷增强聚碳酸酯托槽产生的摩擦小。与使用弹性结扎的Blonde传统聚碳酸酯支架相比,聚碳酸酯无结扎系统的摩擦力显着降低。该研究拒绝了最初的假设,因为在测试系统之间存在显著的摩擦力差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Evaluation of frictional forces of polycarbonate self-ligating brackets.

Aim: To evaluate the frictional forces generated by ceramic- (Opal, Ultradent) and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (Oyster, Gestenco) and compare the effectiveness of these ligatureless systems with glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets (Blonde, Gestenco). The hypothesis is that there is no difference between frictional forces generated by ceramic- and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating and glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate conventional brackets.

Methods: Twelve preadjusted 0.022 3 0.028-inch maxillary canine brackets were tested, divided into three groups: Opal, Oyster, and Blonde. Frictional tests were conducted with the Emic DL 10000 testing machine with a 20 N loadcell for 40 seconds at a 0.5 cm/min speed. Each bracket-wire combination was tested five times. The data generated were analyzed by parametric analysis of variance (one-way ANOVA) and Bonferroni tests.

Results: Analysis of variance indicated significant differences for the three groups (P<.01). The frictional forces of the Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets were significantly lower (37.0 ± 8.9 cN) than those of the Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate self-ligating brackets (49.5 ± 10.1 cN), while the Blonde glass-fiber-reinforced conventional bracket frictional forces were 105.8 ± 6.4 cN.

Conclusion: Oyster glass-fiber-reinforced polycarbonate brackets produced less friction than Opal ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate brackets. The polycarbonate ligatureless system showed significantly lower frictional forces compared to Blonde conventional polycarbonate brackets tied with elastomeric ligatures. The study rejected the initial hypothesis because there are significant differences of frictional forces among the tested systems.

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