Gabriela Cenci Schmitz, Fernanda de Souza Henkin, Mauricio Mezomo, Mariana Marquezan, Gabriela Bonacina, Maximiliano Schünke Gomes, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de Lima
{"title":"牙槽光固化粘接时牙腔温度升高。","authors":"Gabriela Cenci Schmitz, Fernanda de Souza Henkin, Mauricio Mezomo, Mariana Marquezan, Gabriela Bonacina, Maximiliano Schünke Gomes, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de Lima","doi":"10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321167.oar","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the pulp chamber temperature rise (PCTR) in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact and restored mandibular central incisors (M1), maxillary first premolars (Mx4), and mandibular third molars (M8).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Ninety human teeth were included: M1 (n=30), Mx4 (n=30), and M8 (n=30). Light-cure bonding of brackets was performed in intact (n=60) and restored (n=30) teeth, with primer (n=60) or without (n=30) primer. PCTR was defined as the difference between initial (T0) and peak temperatures (T1), recorded with a thermocouple during light-cure bonding. Differences on PCTR between bonding techniques (primer vs. no primer), teeth types (M1 vs. Mx4 vs. M8), and teeth condition (intact vs. restored) were estimated by ANCOVA, with α=5%.Results: PCTR was significantly higher with the use of primer (2.05 ± 0.08oC) than without primer (1.65 ± 0.14oC) (p=0.02), and in M1 (2.23 ± 0.22oC) compared to Mx4 (1.56 ± 0.14oC) (p<0.01). There was no difference in the PCTR in M8 (1.77 ± 0.28oC) compared to M1 or Mx4 (p>0.05), and no difference between intact (1.78 ± 0.14oC) and restored (1.92 ± 0.08oC) teeth (p=0.38). There was no influence of dentin enamel thickness in the PCTR (p=0.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCTR was higher in light-cure bonding of brackets with primer, especially in M1. Light-cure bonding seems less invasive without primer.</p>","PeriodicalId":38720,"journal":{"name":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"28 2","pages":"e2321167"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10241508/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pulp chamber temperature rise in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact versus restored teeth.\",\"authors\":\"Gabriela Cenci Schmitz, Fernanda de Souza Henkin, Mauricio Mezomo, Mariana Marquezan, Gabriela Bonacina, Maximiliano Schünke Gomes, Eduardo Martinelli Santayana de Lima\",\"doi\":\"10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321167.oar\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>To evaluate the pulp chamber temperature rise (PCTR) in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact and restored mandibular central incisors (M1), maxillary first premolars (Mx4), and mandibular third molars (M8).</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Ninety human teeth were included: M1 (n=30), Mx4 (n=30), and M8 (n=30). Light-cure bonding of brackets was performed in intact (n=60) and restored (n=30) teeth, with primer (n=60) or without (n=30) primer. PCTR was defined as the difference between initial (T0) and peak temperatures (T1), recorded with a thermocouple during light-cure bonding. Differences on PCTR between bonding techniques (primer vs. no primer), teeth types (M1 vs. Mx4 vs. M8), and teeth condition (intact vs. restored) were estimated by ANCOVA, with α=5%.Results: PCTR was significantly higher with the use of primer (2.05 ± 0.08oC) than without primer (1.65 ± 0.14oC) (p=0.02), and in M1 (2.23 ± 0.22oC) compared to Mx4 (1.56 ± 0.14oC) (p<0.01). There was no difference in the PCTR in M8 (1.77 ± 0.28oC) compared to M1 or Mx4 (p>0.05), and no difference between intact (1.78 ± 0.14oC) and restored (1.92 ± 0.08oC) teeth (p=0.38). There was no influence of dentin enamel thickness in the PCTR (p=0.19).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PCTR was higher in light-cure bonding of brackets with primer, especially in M1. Light-cure bonding seems less invasive without primer.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38720,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"28 2\",\"pages\":\"e2321167\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10241508/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321167.oar\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.28.2.e2321167.oar","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价下颌中切牙(M1)、上颌第一前磨牙(Mx4)和下颌第三磨牙(M8)带和不带底漆的托槽光固化粘接时牙髓室温升(PCTR)的变化。材料与方法:纳入90颗人牙:M1 (n=30)、Mx4 (n=30)、M8 (n=30)。在完整(n=60)和修复(n=30)牙齿中进行光固化粘接，其中有底漆(n=60)或没有底漆(n=30)。PCTR被定义为初始温度(T0)和峰值温度(T1)之间的差异，在光固化键合过程中用热电偶记录。采用ANCOVA估计不同粘接技术(引物vs.无引物)、牙型(M1 vs. Mx4 vs. M8)和牙状态(完整vs.修复)的PCTR差异，α=5%。结果:使用引物组PCTR(2.05±0.08oC)高于未使用引物组(1.65±0.14oC) (p=0.02)， M1组PCTR(2.23±0.22oC)高于Mx4组PCTR(1.56±0.14oC) (p= 0.05)，完整牙PCTR(1.78±0.14oC)与修复牙PCTR(1.92±0.08oC)差异无统计学意义(p=0.38)。牙本质厚度对PCTR的影响无统计学意义(p=0.19)。结论:光固化支架与引物粘接时PCTR较高，尤其是M1。没有底漆的光固化粘接似乎侵入性更小。
Pulp chamber temperature rise in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact versus restored teeth.
Objective: To evaluate the pulp chamber temperature rise (PCTR) in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact and restored mandibular central incisors (M1), maxillary first premolars (Mx4), and mandibular third molars (M8).
Material and methods: Ninety human teeth were included: M1 (n=30), Mx4 (n=30), and M8 (n=30). Light-cure bonding of brackets was performed in intact (n=60) and restored (n=30) teeth, with primer (n=60) or without (n=30) primer. PCTR was defined as the difference between initial (T0) and peak temperatures (T1), recorded with a thermocouple during light-cure bonding. Differences on PCTR between bonding techniques (primer vs. no primer), teeth types (M1 vs. Mx4 vs. M8), and teeth condition (intact vs. restored) were estimated by ANCOVA, with α=5%.Results: PCTR was significantly higher with the use of primer (2.05 ± 0.08oC) than without primer (1.65 ± 0.14oC) (p=0.02), and in M1 (2.23 ± 0.22oC) compared to Mx4 (1.56 ± 0.14oC) (p<0.01). There was no difference in the PCTR in M8 (1.77 ± 0.28oC) compared to M1 or Mx4 (p>0.05), and no difference between intact (1.78 ± 0.14oC) and restored (1.92 ± 0.08oC) teeth (p=0.38). There was no influence of dentin enamel thickness in the PCTR (p=0.19).
Conclusion: PCTR was higher in light-cure bonding of brackets with primer, especially in M1. Light-cure bonding seems less invasive without primer.
期刊介绍：
The Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics publishes scientific research articles, significant reviews, clinical and technical case reports, brief communications, and other materials related to Orthodontics and Facial Orthopedics.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
