正畸托槽粘接与再粘接中不同粘接体系剪切粘接强度及粘接残余指数的比较

Q3 Dentistry
Mehmet Semih Velioğlu, Hatice Kök, N. Ünlü
{"title":"正畸托槽粘接与再粘接中不同粘接体系剪切粘接强度及粘接残余指数的比较","authors":"Mehmet Semih Velioğlu, Hatice Kök, N. Ünlü","doi":"10.7126/cumudj.986004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index of stainless-steel brackets bonded with different orthodontic adhesive systems.\nMaterials and Methods: In our study performed on 60 premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons, MBT prescription 0.022'' stainless-steel brackets (Discovery Smart®, Dentaurum, Germany) were used. In teeth randomly divided into 3 groups, bonding was performed with Group 1: Trulock Light Activated Bonding System (RMO, USA), Group 2: Bisco Ortho Bracket Paste LC (Bisco, USA), Group 3: Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive (3M, USA). SBS and residual adhesive indexes (ARI) were evaluated by breaking the samples. Adhesive residues were cleaned with tungsten carbide burs from the surfaces of the teeth, rebonding was made after sanding the brackets’ surfaces. SBS and ARI values were re-evaluated. One-way ANOVA, two-sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis of the data, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.\nResults: \nStatistically significant differences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison to the first SBS values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems to enamel (p <0.05). Among the adhesive systems, only a statistically significant difference was found between the first bonding values and the rebonding values of Group 2 (p <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the first and rebond strengths of the other two adhesive systems. Rebonding values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems were very close to each other.\nConclusions: The results of this study suggest that the adhesive systems developed for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to the enamel can show clinically enough bond strength even if the rebonding strengths of the falling stainless-steel brackets to the same enamel surfaces decrease slightly.","PeriodicalId":10781,"journal":{"name":"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Of Shear Bond Strength And Adhesive Remnant Index Between Different Adhesive Systems In Bonding and Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets\",\"authors\":\"Mehmet Semih Velioğlu, Hatice Kök, N. Ünlü\",\"doi\":\"10.7126/cumudj.986004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index of stainless-steel brackets bonded with different orthodontic adhesive systems.\\nMaterials and Methods: In our study performed on 60 premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons, MBT prescription 0.022'' stainless-steel brackets (Discovery Smart®, Dentaurum, Germany) were used. In teeth randomly divided into 3 groups, bonding was performed with Group 1: Trulock Light Activated Bonding System (RMO, USA), Group 2: Bisco Ortho Bracket Paste LC (Bisco, USA), Group 3: Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive (3M, USA). SBS and residual adhesive indexes (ARI) were evaluated by breaking the samples. Adhesive residues were cleaned with tungsten carbide burs from the surfaces of the teeth, rebonding was made after sanding the brackets’ surfaces. SBS and ARI values were re-evaluated. One-way ANOVA, two-sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis of the data, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.\\nResults: \\nStatistically significant differences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison to the first SBS values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems to enamel (p <0.05). Among the adhesive systems, only a statistically significant difference was found between the first bonding values and the rebonding values of Group 2 (p <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the first and rebond strengths of the other two adhesive systems. Rebonding values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems were very close to each other.\\nConclusions: The results of this study suggest that the adhesive systems developed for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to the enamel can show clinically enough bond strength even if the rebonding strengths of the falling stainless-steel brackets to the same enamel surfaces decrease slightly.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.986004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.986004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较不同正畸粘接剂体系对不锈钢托槽的剪切粘接强度(SBS)和粘接剂残留指数的影响。材料和方法:在我们的研究中,60颗因正畸原因拔出的前磨牙使用MBT处方0.022”不锈钢托槽(Discovery Smart®,Dentaurum,德国)。将牙齿随机分为3组,使用组1:Trulock Light Activated bonding System (RMO, USA),组2:Bisco Ortho托架膏LC (Bisco, USA),组3:Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive (3M, USA)进行粘接。通过破碎试样,评价SBS和残余粘接指数(ARI)。用碳化钨毛刺清理牙齿表面的粘接残留物,用砂砂对托槽表面进行再粘接。重新评估SBS和ARI值。资料采用单因素方差分析、双样本t检验和Mann-Whitney U检验进行统计学分析,p <0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:组1、组2 3种不同牙釉质粘接剂体系的第一SBS值比较,差异均有统计学意义(p <0.05)。在不同的粘接系统中,第一次粘接值与第2组的再粘接值差异有统计学意义(p <0.05)。其他两种粘接剂系统的第一次和再粘接强度之间没有统计学上的显著差异。三种不同正畸粘接剂体系的再粘接值非常接近。结论:本研究结果表明,即使下落的不锈钢托槽与同一牙釉质表面的再粘接强度略有下降,用于正畸托槽与牙釉质粘接的粘接系统在临床上仍能表现出足够的粘接强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison Of Shear Bond Strength And Adhesive Remnant Index Between Different Adhesive Systems In Bonding and Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index of stainless-steel brackets bonded with different orthodontic adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: In our study performed on 60 premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons, MBT prescription 0.022'' stainless-steel brackets (Discovery Smart®, Dentaurum, Germany) were used. In teeth randomly divided into 3 groups, bonding was performed with Group 1: Trulock Light Activated Bonding System (RMO, USA), Group 2: Bisco Ortho Bracket Paste LC (Bisco, USA), Group 3: Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive (3M, USA). SBS and residual adhesive indexes (ARI) were evaluated by breaking the samples. Adhesive residues were cleaned with tungsten carbide burs from the surfaces of the teeth, rebonding was made after sanding the brackets’ surfaces. SBS and ARI values were re-evaluated. One-way ANOVA, two-sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis of the data, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison to the first SBS values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems to enamel (p <0.05). Among the adhesive systems, only a statistically significant difference was found between the first bonding values and the rebonding values of Group 2 (p <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the first and rebond strengths of the other two adhesive systems. Rebonding values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems were very close to each other. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the adhesive systems developed for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to the enamel can show clinically enough bond strength even if the rebonding strengths of the falling stainless-steel brackets to the same enamel surfaces decrease slightly.
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
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
×
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