首页 | 本学科首页   官方微博 | 高级检索  
     

不同表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷修复体粘结强度影响的研究
引用本文:余涛,曹军,张兆德,倪冰,王磊,廉恒丽. 不同表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷修复体粘结强度影响的研究[J]. 中国美容医学, 2009, 18(11): 1660-1663
作者姓名:余涛  曹军  张兆德  倪冰  王磊  廉恒丽
作者单位:1. 第四军医大学口腔医学院正畸科,陕西,西安,710032
2. 安徽芜湖解放军94857部队医院
3. 第四军医大学卫生统计教研室
摘    要:目的:研究不同的表面处理方法对金属托槽与不同瓷面粘结强度的影响,为临床托槽粘结前选择合适的陶瓷表面处理方法提供参考依据。方法:选择3种不同的陶瓷材料为研究样本并制作成试件,每种样本按所用的表面处理方法不同分为喷砂、酸蚀、喷砂+酸蚀处理3个组。使用光固化正畸粘结剂将3种陶瓷试件与金属托槽粘结,在万能材料试验机上剪切、测量后再比较其与金属托槽的抗剪粘结强度。结果:对同一种材料与托槽的粘结强度来说,酸蚀组的粘结强度相对于喷砂+酸蚀组与喷砂组都要最低(P〉0.05);而喷砂+酸蚀组与喷砂组间的粘结强度无统计学差异(P〉0.05)。对于同一种表面处理方法来说,3种材料与托槽的粘结强度无统计学差异(P〉0.05)。3种材料与3种处理方法间无交互作用(P〉0.05)。结论:陶瓷修复体所用材料的不同,不对其与金属托槽的粘结强度造成影响。为了提高陶瓷修复体与金属托槽的粘结强度,相对于酸蚀方法,喷砂处理是一种优选的表面处理方法,而喷砂后的酸蚀处理则是没有必要的。

关 键 词:陶瓷修复体  金属托槽  表面处理  抗剪切粘结强度

The effects of various surface preparation methods on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces
Affiliation:YU Tao,CAO Jun,ZHANG Zhao-de,NI Bing,WANG Lei,LIAN Heng-Ii (1.Department of Orthodontics; School of Stomatology, the Fourth Military Medical University,Xi'an 710032,Shaanxi,China 2.Wuhu Hospital of PLA 94857 Troops;3.Department of Health Statistics,the Fourth Military Medical University)
Abstract:Objective This study was aimed to analyze the effects of different surface preparation method and different porcelain restoration material on the bond strength of metal bracket to the restoration. The purpose was to find the suitable clinical preparation method. Methods 3 kinds of porcelain restoration materials (VITA VMK~5 A2,VlTA VMJ A2,VITA VM~9 A2) were sampled and produced into specimens. Every kind of material specimens were divided into 3 groups according the preparation method. The preparation methods were sandblasting (SB),hydrofluoric (HF) acid,and sandblasting combined hydrofluoric (SB+HF). Bracket was bond to the specimen by light-cured orthodontic adhesive. Shear bond strength was tested and compared in different preparation groups and different porcelain materials. Results For the same kind of porcelain material,the HF acid surface preparation group shows the lowest SBS among the other surface treatments (P〈0.05),and there was no significant difference between SB and SB+HF groups.For the same kind of surface preparation method,there was no significant difference among the three kinds of porcelain materials (P〉0.05). There was no interaction between the three kinds of ceramic materials and surface treatment methods (P〉0.05). Conclusion The difference of porcelain restoration material don't result in the change of SBS. In order to increase the bond strength of orthodontic bracket to porcelain restorations,relative to the,SB is the optimization of surface preparation method compared with HF acid preparation.It is suggested that the HF preparation after is not necessary for the bonding strength improving.
Keywords:porcelain restoration  metal bracket  surface preparation  shear bond strength
本文献已被 维普 万方数据 等数据库收录!
设为首页 | 免责声明 | 关于勤云 | 加入收藏

Copyright©北京勤云科技发展有限公司  京ICP备09084417号