论文部分内容阅读
目的:评价传统正畸粘接系统和自酸蚀粘接系统分别对金属托槽和陶瓷托槽的粘接强度。方法:将100颗人前磨牙均分为4组:金属托槽/传统粘接系统组(1组)、金属托槽/自酸蚀粘接系统组(2组)、陶瓷托槽/传统粘接系统组(3组)、陶瓷托槽/自酸蚀粘接系统组(4组),使用Transbond XT树脂糊剂将托槽粘接在牙面上,测量各组的抗剪切粘接强度,并评价其剩余粘接剂指数,对结果进行单因素方差分析。结果:统计学分析表明金属托槽的抗剪切粘接强度高于陶瓷托槽,其差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);1组和2组平均抗剪切粘接强度的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),3组和4组间的差异也无统计学意义(P>0.05);各组剩余粘接剂指数的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),但各组的粘接强度与剩余粘接剂指数有平行相关性(P<0.05)。结论:金属托槽的粘接强度高于陶瓷托槽;自酸蚀粘接系统与传统粘接系统都可满足正畸临床粘接托槽的需求;大部分样本的粘接失败发生在托槽/粘接剂界面或粘接剂内部破坏,表明牙釉质受损的几率较低,且粘接强度和剩余粘接剂指数之间存在统计学相关性。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bonding strength of the traditional orthodontic bonding system and the self-etching bonding system to the metal bracket and the ceramic bracket, respectively. Methods: 100 human premolar teeth were divided into 4 groups: metal bracket / traditional bonding system (group 1), metal bracket / self-etching bonding system (group 2), ceramic bracket / traditional bonding System group (3 groups), ceramic brackets / self-etching bonding system group (4 groups), the brackets were bonded to the tooth surfaces using Transbond XT resin paste, the shear bond strength of each group was measured, The remaining adhesive index was evaluated and the results were subjected to one-way analysis of variance. Results: Statistical analysis showed that the shear bond strength of the metal bracket was higher than that of the ceramic bracket, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05); there was no statistical difference in the average shear bond strength between the groups 1 and 2 (P> 0.05). There was also no significant difference between the three groups and the four groups (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in remaining adhesive index between groups (P> 0.05) Adhesion strength and the remaining adhesive index parallel (P <0.05). Conclusion: The adhesive strength of the metal bracket is higher than that of the ceramic bracket. The self-etching adhesive system and the traditional adhesive system can meet the needs of the orthodontic clinical bonding bracket. The bonding failure of most samples occurs in the bracket / Adhesive interface or internal damage to the adhesive indicates a lower chance of enamel damage and a statistically significant correlation between adhesive strength and the remaining adhesive index.