固化光源对正畸托槽光敏粘结剂抗剪切强度及粘结剂残留指数影响的研究

目的：研究普通卤素灯（QTH）和发光二级管灯（LED）对正畸托槽复合树脂光敏粘结剂（3M）和树脂加强型玻璃离子光敏粘结剂（GC）抗剪切力的影响,为临床正畸粘结材料和固化光源的选择提供一定依据。方法：选取新鲜拔除的第一双尖牙48颗,随机分为4组,使用不同粘结材料和不同光源配合粘结标准网底方丝弓托槽,采用微机万能材料实验机对托槽的粘结强度进行检测,同时记录粘结剂残留指数（ARI）。结果：3M抗剪切力及ARI值均显著大于GC（P〈0．05）;QTH和LED对3M和GC的抗剪切力及ARI值影响差别无统计学意义。结论：2种正畸光敏粘结剂抗剪切强度均符合临床要求,托槽去除后GC对牙面破坏较小;LED灯照可以节约一半光照时间并能达到普通卤素灯的光照效果,正畸托槽粘结建议使用LED灯作为固化光源。     

树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结性能和防龋性能的研究

目的对比树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀与临床普遍使用的复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂的抗剪切力,探讨树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀对牙釉质面脱矿的影响.方法本研究实验一把45颗离体牙随机分成3组,分别使用复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂,树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀及在牙面用厂家提供的处理液进行表面处理后使用树脂加强型玻璃离子门汀粘结正畸托槽.使用材料万能试验机测量各样本的抗剪切力.实验二在离体条件下,对分别使用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀,复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂粘托槽的釉质面进行人工脱矿,用偏振光显微镜观察釉质面的脱钙程度.结果使用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结托槽时,其抗剪切力与临床普遍使用的复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂接近,使用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结托槽,釉质面未见明显脱矿区.结论树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀可能是一种适合临床使用的理想托槽粘结剂.     

酸蚀剂浓度对光固化树脂加强型水门汀粘结强度的影响

目的:比较不同酸蚀浓度下光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀(RMGIC)与正畸托槽的粘结强度。方法:60颗上颌第一前磨牙,随机分成6组,每组10颗。各组采用不同酸蚀浓度的表面处理,粘结后10min,置于人工唾液室温下保存24h。干燥、固定后,测定各样本的抗剪切强度,并记录托槽脱落后牙釉质粘结界面的粘结材料残留指数(ARI)。采用SPSS11.5统计软件包对结果进行χ2检验。结果:(1)托槽的抗剪粘结强度A组为(14.786±4.940)MPa,B组未检测,C组为(7.002±3.768)MPa,D组为(7.879±3.013)MPa,E组为(7.452±2.561)MPa,F组为(7.406±2.407)MPa。C、D、E、F组托槽的抗剪粘结强度比较,差异无显著性,P>0.05。A组与其他组的剪切强度比较,差异有统计学意义,P<0.01。(2)托槽脱落后,牙釉质粘结界面的粘结材料残留指数(ARI)经χ2分析,P>0.05,ARI计分在各组之间无显著性差异。结论:不同浓度的酸蚀剂对RMGIC粘接的托槽的抗剪切强度无显著影响。用不同浓度的酸蚀剂处理牙釉质后,牙釉质表面粘结剂残留指数ARI值无显著差异。     

两种光固化正畸黏结剂的黏结性能评价

目的:研究光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂与自酸蚀光固化正畸黏结剂对金属托槽-牙面黏结的特点。方法:60颗离体前磨牙随机分成6组,每组10颗牙,3组用光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂,另3组用自酸蚀光固化复合树脂黏结剂黏结正畸托槽,分别于0.5、24h及冷热循环实验后测试其抗剪强度及黏结剂残留指数,并通过扫描电镜观察树脂—牙釉质面形态。结果:2种材料黏结强度均能超过5MPa。但是,24h自酸蚀光固化正畸黏结剂的强度高于光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂的强度(P<0.05)。结论:2种光固化正畸黏结剂能提供正畸临床黏结金属托槽足够的黏结力。     

2种耐湿性托槽粘结体系粘结强度的比较研究

目的比较3M Transbond MIP处理液+3M Transbond PLUS变色光固化粘结剂与GC Ortho LC光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子2种粘结体系的粘结强度。方法收集因正畸治疗而拔除的上颌前磨牙80颗,按照随机化原则分成8组,每组10颗。将2种粘结体系分别在干燥、水分污染、唾液污染和血液污染的条件下完成托槽粘结,用电子万能试验机测试剪切强度,并在显微镜下用ARI指数评价各组牙齿表面残余的粘结剂。结果在剪切强度测试中,第1组与第5组比较,第2组与第6组比较,第3组与第7组比较,P>0.05,均无统计学差异;第4组与第8组比较,P<0.01,有统计学差异。ARI评分结果提示两者在干燥、水分污染及唾液污染环境下的ARI平均分值无统计学差异,但在血液污染的条件下,GC Ortho LC的ARI值明显降低。结论 3M Transbond MIP处理液+3M Transbond PLUS变色光固化粘结剂与GC Ortho LC光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子在干燥、水分污染及唾液污染的环境下,粘结强度无明显差异,在血液污染的条件下,推荐使用3M Transbond MIP粘结体系。     

锶强化生物活性玻璃牙釉质粘合树脂的抗菌性能与机械性能测试

目的通过向正畸牙釉质粘合树脂中添加锶强化生物活性玻璃,并对其抗菌性能及机械性能进行测试,寻求合适的添加比例,为正畸临床应用提供理论依据。方法分别将质量分数为1%、2%、3%、4%、5%的锶强化生物活性玻璃掺入到牙釉质粘合树脂中作为实验组,分别为1、2、3、4及5组,未掺入锶强化生物活性玻璃的牙釉质粘合树脂作为对照组,即0组。采用抑菌环法和贴膜法对以上各组进行抑菌活性测试;应用万能试验机对以上各组的剪切强度进行测试,观察并记录托槽脱落后牙面牙釉质粘合树脂残留指数(adhesive resin residual,ARI)。结果各实验组及对照组均未出现抑菌环,实验组4和5组的抗菌率达到99.9%,具有强抗细菌作用。实验各组的剪切强度与对照组相比,均有显著性差异(P<0.05)。实验各组之间比较,随掺入比例增加,剪切强度呈现降低趋势,但无统计学差异(P>0.05)。实验各组剪切强度均在临床可接受的剪切强度范围内,能够满足正畸临床要求。实验各组及对照组牙面均有牙釉质粘合树脂残留,ARI计分均在2~4分之间,各组间ARI计分比较无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论掺入4%质量分数的锶强化生物活性玻璃的正畸牙釉质粘合树脂既表现出强抗菌作用,剪切强度又能够达到正畸临床需要,并对釉质表面粘合树脂的残留量无影响。     

树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀临床初步应用的研究

目的 :临床普遍使用的复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂有许多不足之处 ,如在粘结过程和去粘结过程中导致釉质的丧失 ;托槽周围因菌斑积聚和停留导致脱矿等。玻璃离子水门汀因具有能与牙釉质形成化学性粘结 ,能在潮湿环境中使用 ,具有抗龋性等特性而成为替代传统正畸粘结剂的理想选择。但传统型玻璃离子水门汀的粘结力比复合树脂粘结剂低 ,影响了其在临床的广泛应用。如何提高玻璃离子水门汀的粘结性能 ,使其适合正畸临床粘结的需要一直是研究者们关注的热点。近年来出现的树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀进行了这方面的尝试。材料和方法 :本研究在 2 0名正畸初诊患者的上颌左右侧分别使用正畸用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀 ,复合树脂型正畸釉质粘结剂粘结正畸托槽 ,观察其临床脱落率。其主要目的为了解树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀在临床使用的脱落率 ,探讨树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀在临床使用的可行性。结果 :托槽粘结后一个月 ,统计托槽的脱落情况 ,结果如下 :用树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结的 88个托槽有 5个脱落 (2 .3% ) ;而用复合树脂粘结的 88个托槽有 4个脱落 (3.4 % )。卡方检验结果 (df=1,x2 =0 .117,p >0 .0 5 )显示 ,两种粘结剂的脱落率无显著性差异。结论 :树脂加强型玻璃离子水门汀粘结托槽的脱落率与使用     

树脂修饰化玻璃离子托槽粘结剂粘结强度的体外研究

目的：评估一种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子托槽粘结剂在牙面不同处理方式和环境下的两次粘结后的剪切强度情况。方法：将新近拔除的105颗上颌第一前磨牙随机均分成7组,按照说明书的要求完成托槽的粘结。对照组牙面用37%的磷酸处理后,用光固化复合树脂粘结剂（3M,Transbond XT）粘结。其它6组牙面分别在37%的磷酸、GC处理剂（GC Self-Conditioner）、和不做任何处理的条件下,分别在干燥和湿润的环境下用树脂修饰化的玻璃离子（RMGIC;Fuji ORTHO LC,GC Corporation,Tokyo,Japan）粘结,所有牙齿均选用同种托槽。托槽粘结24 h后,在万能测力机下以1 mm/min的速度卸载,并记录下数值。除去牙面和托槽底面多余粘结剂后,重复上述过程。每次卸载后检查牙釉质损坏情况。结果：对照组两次剪切强度有较小的差异,其它GC玻璃离子粘结剂组两次剪切强度没有统计学意义。GC粘结剂不做任何处理组在干燥和湿润的环境下其剪切强度存在明显的差异。干燥环境下,37%的磷酸和GC处理剂处理后,GC粘结剂组两次卸载后的牙釉质均出现不同程度的釉裂或釉质脱落。结论：这种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子粘结剂可以在多种条件下用于托槽的粘结。     

两种正畸粘接剂的临床应用效果分析

目的：比较树脂类正畸粘接剂（3M）和树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂（GC）粘接托槽的脱落率及牙釉质的脱矿率。方法：选取正畸治疗病例60例,采用自身对照方法在口内相对象限随机使用3M粘接剂和GC粘接剂粘接托槽,记录托槽的第一次脱落情况及治疗结束时牙釉质的脱矿情况。结果：3M粘接剂组托槽的脱落率为9.67%,GC粘接剂组托槽的脱落率为11.83%,两组之间无显著性差异（P〉0.05）;治疗结束时,3M粘接剂组牙釉质的脱矿率为21.5%,GC粘接剂组牙釉质的脱矿率为18.0%,两组之间存在统计学差异（P〈0.05）。结论：树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂与传统的树脂粘接剂都能够满足临床治疗需要,但是树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂可以免除酸蚀,且能释放氟离子,降低釉质脱矿的发生率。     

自酸蚀粘结剂的预固化及其对复合树脂与牙本质和牙釉质粘结强度的影响

目的：评价并比较在填入复合树脂前对粘结剂进行光固化和粘结剂与复合树脂同步固化两种情况下．3种自酸蚀粘结剂与牙釉质和牙本质的剪切粘结强度。材料和方法：对120颗拔除的牙齿进行湿磨以在牙釉质和牙本质上形成粘结平面。按照厂家操作说明分别将3种粘结剂（Adper Prompt—L-Pop．Clearfil SE Bond和Xenolll）涂于牙釉质或牙本质上。半数样本涂布粘结剂后＆口刻光固化（PRC组）,另一半将复合树脂填入后再行光固化（COC组）。将复合树脂置入特氟龙管内并在其上方进行光固化。样本于室温储于去离子水中24h后．使用拉伸强度试验机进行剪切力加载直到断裂。用2因素方差分析、预固化和材料的单因素分析、以及Tukey显著性检验多重比较程序来分析剪切粘结强度（MPa）。所有检验均在5％显著性水平（n=10）进行。结果：与同步固化方法比较,先光固化粘结剂的方法显示其与牙本质的粘结强度明显增高（P〈0001）：而与牙釉质的粘结强度．PRC组与COC组并无显著差异（P=0．420）。结论：在固化复合树脂之前．对自酸蚀粘结剂预固化可产生更大的牙本质粘结强度：不同的自酸蚀粘结剂固化技术对釉质的粘结强度并无明显影响。     

3种正畸粘接剂抗唾液污染的剪切强度比较

目的研究3种粘接剂在唾液污染湿润、干燥条件下粘接正畸托槽后的剪切强度,以及托槽去除后牙面残留粘接剂指数(ARI)。方法60颗人类离体前磨牙随机等量分为3组。选用京津釉质粘合剂、单组分粘接剂、超强粘接剂,在唾液污染湿润和干燥条件下粘接正畸托槽后,测定并记录抗剪切强度和残留粘接剂指数。结果前两种粘接剂在唾液污染湿润条件下,粘接托槽的抗剪切强度明显下降,不能满足治疗要求(6～8MPa),但在唾液污染干燥情况下,粘接托槽则能满足正畸治疗要求;超强粘接剂在2种情况下均能满足正畸治疗要求。结论超强粘接剂在唾液污染湿润和干燥情况下均可使用;而京津釉质粘合剂、单组分粘接剂只能在唾液污染干燥情况下使用。     

光固化与化学固化复合树脂黏接正畸托槽的对比研究

目的对比光固化、化学固化复合树脂黏接正畸托槽的抗剪强度和牙釉质脱矿程度。方法20颗离体前磨牙随机分为光固化复合树脂组(1)和化学固化复合树脂组(2),检测抗剪黏接强度;将116例正畸患者左右侧上前牙随机分为2组,试验组用光固化复合树脂黏接托槽,对照组用化学固化复合树脂黏接托槽,对比正畸治疗结束后两组牙釉质脱矿的差异。结果2组黏接抗剪强度为:(1)组(17.45±7.06)MPa,(2)组(13.02±5.38)MPa,两组间有差异(P<0.05)。试验组与对照组正畸治疗结束后牙釉质脱矿程度有显著差异(P<0.01)。结论光固化型复合树脂的抗剪强度优于化学固化型。光固化复合树脂黏接正畸托槽能减少正畸治疗中牙釉质脱矿。     

��ͬ������ڹ�̻�������֬����������в���Ч���ȽϷ���

目的评价不同黏结剂用于光固化复合树脂充填体表面托槽黏结的效果。方法2012年3月于中国医科大学口腔医学院正畸科制作10个自凝树脂长方体试件,在其4个表面制备窝洞并行光固化复合树脂充填。将40个树脂充填体随机分为A、B、C、D组（每组10个）,分别用京津釉质黏结剂、3M Unite化学固化黏结剂、3M Transbond光固化黏结剂和可乐丽菲露AP—X光固化复合树脂黏结金属托槽,进行抗剪切强度测试,并测评光固化树脂面黏结剂残留指数（ARI积分）。结果4种黏结剂的抗剪切强度分别为：A组（7．763±1．240）MPa;B组（8．231±0．338）MPa;C组（8．654±0．916）MPa;D组（8．349±0．820）MPa。4种黏结剂的抗剪切强度均达到临床要求,其中c组与A组的抗剪切强度差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,其余各组间的抗剪切强度差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。各组的ARI积分差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论在经过打磨粗糙表面处理后的光固化复合树脂表面黏结托槽时,4种黏结剂均能满足临床要求。其中3MTransbond“光固化黏结剂产生的抗剪切强度最大。     

两种正畸粘接系统对金属和陶瓷托槽粘接强度的影响

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。     

Comparison of the shear bond strength of 2 self-etch primer/adhesive systems.

Conventional adhesive systems use 3 different agents-an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin for bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems in operative dentistry is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application. Combining conditioning and priming saves time and should be more cost-effective to the clinician and indirectly to the patient. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of mix and no-mix self-etch primers/bonding systems on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to the following protocols. In group I, a self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system, Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), was applied on the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer; it has 2 components that must be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT and light-cured for 20 seconds. In group II, a no-mix self-etch bracket adhesive system, Ideal 1 (GAG International, Islandia, NY), was applied to the teeth as suggested by the manufacturer. The self-etch primer has 1 component that does not need to be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with the adhesive and light-cured for 20 seconds. The in vitro findings indicated that the shear bond strength comparisons (t = 0.681) of the 2 adhesive systems were not significantly different (P =.501). The mean shear bond strength of the 2-component acid etch primer was 5.9 +/- 2.7 MPa, and the mean for the 1-component system was 6.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. The clinician should consider the bond strength and the ease of application of the various components of the bracket bonding systems available on the market.     

Effect of applying a sustained force during bonding orthodontic brackets on the adhesive layer and on shear bond strength

The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of applying a sustained seating force during bonding on the adhesive layer and on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. Forty human premolars divided into two groups were included in the study. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to the premolars with Transbond XT light cure adhesive and Transbond Plus Self Etch Primer (SEP). The brackets in both groups were subjected to an initial seating force of 300 g for 3 seconds, sufficient to position the bracket. The seating force was maintained throughout the 40 seconds of light curing in group 2. SBS was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with a shear blade using an Instron testing unit at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. A Student's t-test was used to compare the bond strength of the two groups and a chi-square test to compare the frequencies of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The mean SBS was significantly different between the two groups (P=0.025). The bond strength was higher (mean 8.15±0.89 MPa) in group 2 compared with group 1 (mean 7.39±1.14 MPa). There was no significant difference (P=0.440) in the ARI scores between the two groups. Applying a sustained seating force during orthodontic bracket bonding improves bond strength but does not change the distribution of the ARI scores.     

Effects of modifying the bonding protocol on the shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic orthodontic brackets

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro shear bond strength and failure site of metallic and ceramic orthodontic brackets with modified bonding protocols. Sixty bovine mandibular incisors with similar anatomy were selected and divided into six groups (n = 10). In the first protocol, metallic and ceramic brackets were bonded according to the manufacturers' directions (controls); in the second protocol, the step of photocuring with the primer agent was eliminated; and in the third protocol, the primer agent was applied on the tooth and on the bracket base, followed by application of the composite adhesive on the bracket base, with one-step photocure. The same orthodontic adhesive was used for all groups. Shear bond strengths were measured and adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) were determined after bracket failure. The results demonstrated similar shear bond strengths in the protocols but presented significantly greater values for the metallic groups (two-way ANOVA, P < 0.05). ARI scores were compared with chi-square tests, and the ceramic brackets had significantly greater ARI scores compared to the metallic brackets. Based on these results, the manufacturer's bonding protocol can be modified to save clinical time without compromising adhesion of the brackets.     

Effect of remineralizing agents on bond strength of orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study

Background

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effect of casein phosphopeptide amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) and CPP-ACP with fluoride (CPP-ACP-F) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with two different adhesive systems.

Methods

One hundred twenty-six human premolar teeth were selected. One hundred twenty teeth were used for SBS testing, and six teeth were used for scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination. One hundred twenty premolars were divided into mainly three groups: CPP-ACP (group A), CPP-ACP-F (group B), and control group (group C). Each group was sub-divided into two groups according to the bonding adhesive, light cure (groups A1, B1, and C1) and chemical cure (groups A2, B2, and C2). The teeth were pre-treated with the group-specified preventive agent 1 h/day for five consecutive days. Standard edgewise brackets were bonded with the respective adhesives. SBS evaluation was done with the universal testing machine. After debonding, all the teeth were scored for adhesive remaining on the buccal surface, in accordance to adhesive remnant index, under a stereomicroscope. The acid-etched enamel surfaces were observed under SEM after treatment with CPP-ACP, CPP-ACP-F, and artificial saliva.

Result

In light-cure adhesive group, CPP-ACP-F (B1) showed superior results compared to the control group (C1), whereas the CPP-ACP group (A1) showed lower mean SBS than the control group (C1). Both these differences were not statistically significant (p > 0.05). In chemical-cure adhesive group, control group C2 showed significantly superior results (p < 0.05) compared to group A2 and group B2. The results of two-way ANOVA showed highly significant difference due to adhesive types (p < 0.01), whereas enamel pre-treatment showed non-significant difference (p > 0.01).

Conclusion

The SBS of the orthodontic brackets was non-significantly affected when the brackets were cured with light-cure bonding system and treated with either CPP-ACP or CPP-ACP-F, whereas with chemical-cure adhesive, decreased bond strength was seen, which was within the clinically acceptable limits.     

Effect of resin cure mode and fluoride content on bracket debonding.

Enamel decalcification around brackets is sometimes observed during and after orthodontic treatment. Reports in the literature suggest that the preventive advantage of fluoride-releasing adhesive resins may be compromised by an increased incidence of bond failure. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects on shear debonding of incorporating fluoride into the bracket bonding system. Another purpose was to determine the effect of polymerization mode on debonding. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to bovine enamel using one of three types of adhesive resin--no-mix, chemically cured, or light-cured--each formulated with and without fluoride. The teeth were stored in artificial saliva for 24 hours or 30 days and then debonded in shear. Data analysis was performed using ANOVA followed by post-hoc multiple comparison between group pairs. It was found that: (1) fluoride had either no effect or it increased the bond value; (2) the no-mix adhesive demonstrated the lowest bond value; (3) the duration of storage in artificial saliva had no effect on the bond value of the chemically cured and light-cured adhesives but did affect the no-mix adhesive; and (4) the no-mix adhesive released significantly less fluoride than the two other products. Thus, the presence of fluoride in the bonding adhesive does not reduce the force required to debond in shear, and chemically or light-cured adhesives provide consistently higher bond values over extended immersion times than the no-mix product.