综合底漆正畸胶粘剂剪切粘接强度评价的比较研究

IF 0.5 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
B. Yilmaz, Zeynep Beyza Yildirim, E. Şeker, Furkan Ozden, G. Kurt
{"title":"综合底漆正畸胶粘剂剪切粘接强度评价的比较研究","authors":"B. Yilmaz, Zeynep Beyza Yildirim, E. Şeker, Furkan Ozden, G. Kurt","doi":"10.25259/apos_218_2022","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nThe study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of three orthodontic adhesives with integrated primer, with those of self-etching and conventional bonding adhesives.\n\n\n\nOne hundred extracted premolars were randomly allocated to five groups. Brackets were bonded using three adhesives with integrated primer (GC Ortho Connect™, Biofix, and Orthocem). A group of brackets was bonded with the conventional bonding procedure (Transbond XT) and one group was bonded with a self-etching primer (Transbond™ Plus). All samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles: At 5°C and 55°C media). The compressive strength test was performed and the maximum load when the bracket detached was recorded. The amount of residual adhesive (ARI) remaining on the tooth surface was assessed visually.\n\n\n\nSignificantly higher SBS values were recorded with the conventional technique (14.01 ± 5.79 megapascals [MPa]), compared to other groups except for GC Ortho Connect™ (11.86 ± 3.83 MPa). There was no significant difference between the self-etching group and the groups containing integrated primer samples. However, one of the adhesives with integrated primer presented SBS values near-slightly below the limit considered clinically successful (7.65 ± 3.71 MPa). The ARI scores varied between adhesive groups; GC Ortho Connect™ and the self-etching primer samples showed statistically significantly higher scores compared to the three other groups.\n\n\n\nClinically successful bonding values were achieved with two out of three different adhesives with integrated primer. One of the adhesives with integrated primer provided a similar SBS value to the tri-step conventional bonding procedure. ARI scores varied independently from SBS values.\n","PeriodicalId":42593,"journal":{"name":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesives with integrated primer: A comparative study\",\"authors\":\"B. Yilmaz, Zeynep Beyza Yildirim, E. Şeker, Furkan Ozden, G. Kurt\",\"doi\":\"10.25259/apos_218_2022\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nThe study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of three orthodontic adhesives with integrated primer, with those of self-etching and conventional bonding adhesives.\\n\\n\\n\\nOne hundred extracted premolars were randomly allocated to five groups. Brackets were bonded using three adhesives with integrated primer (GC Ortho Connect™, Biofix, and Orthocem). A group of brackets was bonded with the conventional bonding procedure (Transbond XT) and one group was bonded with a self-etching primer (Transbond™ Plus). All samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles: At 5°C and 55°C media). The compressive strength test was performed and the maximum load when the bracket detached was recorded. The amount of residual adhesive (ARI) remaining on the tooth surface was assessed visually.\\n\\n\\n\\nSignificantly higher SBS values were recorded with the conventional technique (14.01 ± 5.79 megapascals [MPa]), compared to other groups except for GC Ortho Connect™ (11.86 ± 3.83 MPa). There was no significant difference between the self-etching group and the groups containing integrated primer samples. However, one of the adhesives with integrated primer presented SBS values near-slightly below the limit considered clinically successful (7.65 ± 3.71 MPa). The ARI scores varied between adhesive groups; GC Ortho Connect™ and the self-etching primer samples showed statistically significantly higher scores compared to the three other groups.\\n\\n\\n\\nClinically successful bonding values were achieved with two out of three different adhesives with integrated primer. One of the adhesives with integrated primer provided a similar SBS value to the tri-step conventional bonding procedure. ARI scores varied independently from SBS values.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":42593,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"APOS Trends in Orthodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"APOS Trends in Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_218_2022\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"APOS Trends in Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25259/apos_218_2022","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究的目的是比较三种集成底漆正畸胶粘剂与自蚀刻和常规粘结胶粘剂的剪切粘结强度(SBS)。100颗拔除的前磨牙随机分为5组。支架使用三种带集成底漆的粘合剂(GC Ortho Connect™、Biofix和Orthocem)进行粘合。一组托架用常规的粘合方法(Transbond XT)粘合,一组用自蚀刻底漆(Transbond™Plus)粘合。所有样品都进行了热老化(5000次循环:在5°C和55°C介质下)。进行抗压强度试验,记录支架分离时的最大载荷。目测牙面残留粘接剂(ARI)的数量。除GC Ortho Connect™(11.86±3.83 MPa)外,常规技术的SBS值显著高于其他组(14.01±5.79兆帕斯卡[MPa])。自蚀刻组与集成引物样品组之间无显著差异。然而,一种集成引物的粘接剂的SBS值几乎略低于临床成功的极限(7.65±3.71 MPa)。黏合剂组间ARI评分差异较大;与其他三组相比,GC Ortho Connect™和自蚀刻引物样品的得分在统计学上显着更高。临床上成功的结合值实现了两种不同的胶粘剂与集成底漆。其中一种具有集成底漆的粘合剂提供了与三步常规粘合过程相似的SBS值。ARI分数独立于SBS值而变化。
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 shear bond strength of orthodontic adhesives with integrated primer: A comparative study
The study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of three orthodontic adhesives with integrated primer, with those of self-etching and conventional bonding adhesives. One hundred extracted premolars were randomly allocated to five groups. Brackets were bonded using three adhesives with integrated primer (GC Ortho Connect™, Biofix, and Orthocem). A group of brackets was bonded with the conventional bonding procedure (Transbond XT) and one group was bonded with a self-etching primer (Transbond™ Plus). All samples were subjected to thermal aging (5000 cycles: At 5°C and 55°C media). The compressive strength test was performed and the maximum load when the bracket detached was recorded. The amount of residual adhesive (ARI) remaining on the tooth surface was assessed visually. Significantly higher SBS values were recorded with the conventional technique (14.01 ± 5.79 megapascals [MPa]), compared to other groups except for GC Ortho Connect™ (11.86 ± 3.83 MPa). There was no significant difference between the self-etching group and the groups containing integrated primer samples. However, one of the adhesives with integrated primer presented SBS values near-slightly below the limit considered clinically successful (7.65 ± 3.71 MPa). The ARI scores varied between adhesive groups; GC Ortho Connect™ and the self-etching primer samples showed statistically significantly higher scores compared to the three other groups. Clinically successful bonding values were achieved with two out of three different adhesives with integrated primer. One of the adhesives with integrated primer provided a similar SBS value to the tri-step conventional bonding procedure. ARI scores varied independently from SBS values.
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
APOS Trends in Orthodontics
APOS Trends in Orthodontics DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
47
×
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