粘接保持器用复合树脂的粘接强度

SD Sinniah, Sp Jones, G. Georgiou, S. Cunningham, A. Petrie
{"title":"粘接保持器用复合树脂的粘接强度","authors":"SD Sinniah, Sp Jones, G. Georgiou, S. Cunningham, A. Petrie","doi":"10.24191/cos.v3i0.17515","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objectives: To compare the bond strengths and survival of flowable and non -flowable composite resins used with bonded retainers. Setting: Department of Orthodontics, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, United Kingdom. Methods: Flowable composite resins (TransbondTM Supreme LV, StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow®) and non-flowable control resin (TransbondTM LR) were made into cylinders prior to bonding to hydoxyapatite discs. They were then mounted into jigs and tested in the InstronTM Universal Testing Machine in both shear and tensile modes. Results: The highest mean shear bond strength was seen with StarFlowTM (14.09 MPa), which was significantly higher than both TransbondTM LR (9.48 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (8.20 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of Tetric EvoFlow® (11.86 MPa) was also significantly higher than TransbondTM Supreme LV. The highest mean tensile bond strength was seen with Tetric EvoFlow® (2.14 MPa), which was significantly higher than TransbondTM LR (1.15 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.61 MPa) but not significantly different to StarFlowTM (1.47 MPa). For shear loading, StarFlowTM had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 15.10 MPa, followed by Tetric EvoFlow® (13.00 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (7.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 9.00 MPa. For tensile loading, Tetric EvoFlow® had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 2.50 MPa, followed by StarFlowTM (1.30 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 1.00 MPa. Conclusions: Mean shear bond strengths for all of the resins were significantly higher than the mean tensile bond strengths. StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow® could potentially be suitable clinical alternatives to TransbondTM LR due to its low viscosity flow characteristics and adequate shear and tensile bond strengths.","PeriodicalId":10525,"journal":{"name":"Compendium of Oral Science","volume":"125 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bond Strengths of Composite Resins used for the Attachment of Bonded Retainers\",\"authors\":\"SD Sinniah, Sp Jones, G. Georgiou, S. Cunningham, A. Petrie\",\"doi\":\"10.24191/cos.v3i0.17515\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objectives: To compare the bond strengths and survival of flowable and non -flowable composite resins used with bonded retainers. Setting: Department of Orthodontics, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, United Kingdom. Methods: Flowable composite resins (TransbondTM Supreme LV, StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow®) and non-flowable control resin (TransbondTM LR) were made into cylinders prior to bonding to hydoxyapatite discs. They were then mounted into jigs and tested in the InstronTM Universal Testing Machine in both shear and tensile modes. Results: The highest mean shear bond strength was seen with StarFlowTM (14.09 MPa), which was significantly higher than both TransbondTM LR (9.48 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (8.20 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of Tetric EvoFlow® (11.86 MPa) was also significantly higher than TransbondTM Supreme LV. The highest mean tensile bond strength was seen with Tetric EvoFlow® (2.14 MPa), which was significantly higher than TransbondTM LR (1.15 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.61 MPa) but not significantly different to StarFlowTM (1.47 MPa). For shear loading, StarFlowTM had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 15.10 MPa, followed by Tetric EvoFlow® (13.00 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (7.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 9.00 MPa. For tensile loading, Tetric EvoFlow® had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 2.50 MPa, followed by StarFlowTM (1.30 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 1.00 MPa. Conclusions: Mean shear bond strengths for all of the resins were significantly higher than the mean tensile bond strengths. StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow® could potentially be suitable clinical alternatives to TransbondTM LR due to its low viscosity flow characteristics and adequate shear and tensile bond strengths.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10525,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"volume\":\"125 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Compendium of Oral Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v3i0.17515\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Compendium of Oral Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24191/cos.v3i0.17515","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:比较可流动和不可流动复合树脂与粘接固位器的粘接强度和寿命。单位:英国伦敦大学学院伊士曼牙科研究所正畸科。方法:将可流动复合树脂(TransbondTM Supreme LV, StarFlowTM和Tetric EvoFlow®)和不可流动控制树脂(TransbondTM LR)制成圆柱体,然后与羟基灰石盘结合。然后将它们安装到夹具中,并在InstronTM通用试验机中以剪切和拉伸模式进行测试。结果:StarFlowTM的平均剪切强度最高(14.09 MPa),显著高于TransbondTM LR (9.48 MPa)和TransbondTM Supreme LV (8.20 MPa)。Tetric EvoFlow®的平均剪切结合强度(11.86 MPa)也显著高于TransbondTM Supreme LV。Tetric EvoFlow®的平均抗拉强度最高(2.14 MPa),显著高于TransbondTM LR (1.15 MPa)和TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.61 MPa),但与StarFlowTM (1.47 MPa)差异不显著。对于剪切加载,StarFlowTM在15.10 MPa时的第50个百分点存活率最高,其次是Tetric EvoFlow®(13.00 MPa)和TransbondTM Supreme LV (7.50 MPa)。TransbondTM LR在9.00 MPa时的估计值为50个百分位数。对于拉伸加载,Tetric EvoFlow®在2.50 MPa时具有最高的第50百分位生存估计,其次是StarFlowTM (1.30 MPa)和TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.50 MPa)。TransbondTM LR在1.00 MPa时的估计值为50个百分位数。结论:所有树脂的平均剪切结合强度显著高于平均拉伸结合强度。StarFlowTM和Tetric EvoFlow®可能是TransbondTM LR的合适临床替代品,因为其低粘度流动特性和足够的剪切和拉伸粘合强度。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bond Strengths of Composite Resins used for the Attachment of Bonded Retainers
Objectives: To compare the bond strengths and survival of flowable and non -flowable composite resins used with bonded retainers. Setting: Department of Orthodontics, UCL Eastman Dental Institute, United Kingdom. Methods: Flowable composite resins (TransbondTM Supreme LV, StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow®) and non-flowable control resin (TransbondTM LR) were made into cylinders prior to bonding to hydoxyapatite discs. They were then mounted into jigs and tested in the InstronTM Universal Testing Machine in both shear and tensile modes. Results: The highest mean shear bond strength was seen with StarFlowTM (14.09 MPa), which was significantly higher than both TransbondTM LR (9.48 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (8.20 MPa). The mean shear bond strength of Tetric EvoFlow® (11.86 MPa) was also significantly higher than TransbondTM Supreme LV. The highest mean tensile bond strength was seen with Tetric EvoFlow® (2.14 MPa), which was significantly higher than TransbondTM LR (1.15 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.61 MPa) but not significantly different to StarFlowTM (1.47 MPa). For shear loading, StarFlowTM had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 15.10 MPa, followed by Tetric EvoFlow® (13.00 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (7.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 9.00 MPa. For tensile loading, Tetric EvoFlow® had the highest 50th percentile survival estimate at 2.50 MPa, followed by StarFlowTM (1.30 MPa) and TransbondTM Supreme LV (0.50 MPa). TransbondTM LR had a 50th percentile estimate at 1.00 MPa. Conclusions: Mean shear bond strengths for all of the resins were significantly higher than the mean tensile bond strengths. StarFlowTM and Tetric EvoFlow® could potentially be suitable clinical alternatives to TransbondTM LR due to its low viscosity flow characteristics and adequate shear and tensile bond strengths.
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信