残留牙面粘结剂不同去除方法对牙面的影响

目的：评价不同方法去除残留于牙面的托槽粘结剂对牙釉质表面的影响。方法：收集60颗因正畸拔出的健康前磨牙,按不同去除粘结剂方法随机分为3组,每组20颗,分别使用慢速碳钨车针（A组）、超声波洁治（B组）、矽粒子（c组）进行去粘结剂处理,记录每组去除粘结剂所需时间;用万能工具显微镜测量去除粘结剂前后牙釉质厚度改变以计算釉质损失量;体视显微镜下观察釉质表面的粗糙度改变。对操作时间和釉质损失量作方差分析。结果：去粘结剂后釉质损失量排序为超声龈上洁治组〉矽粒子组〉碳钨车针组,三组存在显著差异性（P〈0．05）;去除粘结剂所需时间排序为碳钨车针组〈超声龈上洁治组〈矽粒子组,三组存在显著差异性∽〈0．05）。去粘结剂后体视显微镜观察显示;碳钨车针组镜下釉质表面均匀规则,有少量细微残留物,见少量的细小划痕;超声洁治组镜下釉质表面明显划痕,深浅不一,并有轻重不同的釉质裂纹,牙面上见粘结剂残留较多;矽粒子组划痕较细而浅,数量明显较少。结论：用碳钨车针去除残留牙面粘结剂方法对牙面的影响较小,时间适合临床操作,是临床值得推荐的一种去粘结方法。     

5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较

目的 通过比较5种方法去除牙面残余正畸粘接剂对牙面的影响及操作所用时间,为筛选最佳去牙面粘接树脂方法提供参考。方法 选用正畸治疗需要拔除的健康前磨牙40颗,按不同的去牙面粘接剂方法随机分为5组,每组8颗。在常规粘接托接槽并去粘接后,分别用碳化钨钻（A组）、碳化钨钻+矽粒子（B组）、金刚砂钻（C组）、金刚砂钻+矽粒子（D组）、矽粒子（E组）做牙面处理,记录各组操作时间(T),并在扫描电镜(SEM)下观察、照相,记录釉质损伤指数（enamel damage index）。采用SPSS20.0软件包对操作时间T及EDI分别进行单因素方差分析及非参数秩变换分析。结果 各组EDI排序为C组>D组>A组>B组>E组,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。各组操作时间排序为E组>D组>B组>A组>C组,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论 用高速碳化钨钻加矽粒子去除残余粘接剂对釉质损伤较小且操作时间合理,值得临床推荐。     

四种方法去除牙面正畸树脂粘结剂的效果评价

目的 评价四种去除正畸粘结剂及处理釉质表面方法的效果.材料和方法 选择正畸拔除的健康前磨牙40个,常规粘结托槽去除托槽后将实验牙随机分为4组,每组10个牙.分别选用粘结剂去除钳,进口碳钨钻,矽粒子及顺序使用上述三种材料在离体牙上进行四种方式的去粘结处理,分别记录操作时间(T)、并在扫描电镜观察下测量粘结剂残留指数(Adhesive Remnant Index,ARI)及釉质表面指数(Enamel Surface Index,ESI).ARI,ESI进行非参数秩变换分析,操作时间进行单因素方差分析.结果 序列组组合方法去除正畸粘结剂彻底,对釉质损害最小,抛光后牙表面接近正常釉质.     

气流喷砂器对牙面色素清洁效果和粗糙度影响

目的 探讨4种气流喷砂器和超声洁治器对牙面外来色素的清洁能力和对牙面粗糙度的影响.方法 33颗离体牙分别用4种气流喷砂器(OP组:Osada Porarisu T;HC组:HandyJet C;QS组:QuickJet S;PM组:Prophy-mate T)和超声洁治器(US组:Morita)处理后,用分光色差仪和激...     

窝沟封闭中牙面处理技术的应用及研究进展

影响窝沟封闭剂保存率的两个主要因素是：封闭材料的类型和牙面处理技术［１］。牙面处理技术对提高封闭剂的保存率具有重要的意义,本文就这方面资料作一综述。１－牙面清洁技术多数学者认为牙面清洁可以有效地清除窝沟内的菌斑和食物残渣,使封闭剂易于流入窝沟,有利于封闭剂的固位。但是,Ｄｏｎｎａｎ等［２］比较了用和不用牙面清洁剂后酸蚀封闭窝沟的方法,结果牙面清洁剂的使用并不能提高封闭剂的保存率。而且Ｇａｒｃｉａ－Ｇｏｄｏｙ等［３］认为,清洁剂中的微小粒子滞留于窝沟中不易被清洗干净,妨碍封闭剂流入窝沟内,不利于封…     

不同抛光处理对粘结托槽的瓷表面粗糙度影响的体外研究

目的：探讨不同抛光处理方法对烤瓷表面粘结的托槽去除后,瓷表面抛光后粗糙度的影响。方法：采用不同方法粘结托槽：A组（氢氟酸＋陶瓷偶联剂＋釉质粘结剂）;B组（氢氟酸＋釉质粘结剂）;C组（陶瓷偶联剂＋釉质粘结剂）。烤瓷片表面不同方法粘结托槽经剪切去除后,测定瓷面采用不同步骤抛光处理前后及对照组的瓷片表面粗糙度值。结果：抛光前A、B组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）,C组小于A、B组,差异有统计学意义（P＜0．05）;抛光过程中各组间差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）;各组抛光前后比较差异有统计学意义（P＜0．01）;抛光后各组间比较差异无统计学意义（P＞0．05）,都达到了对照组水平（P＞0．05）。结论：机械打磨、氢氟酸、陶瓷偶联剂对瓷表面粗糙度的影响依次递减,抛光套装依序抛光对降低表面粗糙度行之有效,抛光后能使托槽去除后瓷表面粗糙度达到对照组水平。     

两种漂白剂去除牙面色斑效果的分析

目的研究两种漂白剂去除牙面色斑的效果。方法使用洛贝指数和数码照像计算机色度分析,系统分析并比较实验前、后牙面洛贝指数和色斑占牙面百分比的变化。结果两种漂白剂使用2周后与空白对照组比较洛贝指数的3个指标相差显著(P<0.01);色斑占牙面百分比减小。结论两种漂白剂都能去除牙面色斑。     

酸蚀后牙面不同处理方法对托槽粘接效果的影响

目的探讨三种临床常见的不同的酸蚀后牙面处理方法对托槽粘接效果的影响。方法对３０例气水枪冲洗,湿棉球擦拭及酒精棉球擦拭等三种不同酸蚀后牙面处理方法的临床托槽脱落率及粘接剂残留指数ＡＲＩ进行回顾性统计比较。结果气水枪冲洗酸蚀牙面组托槽脱落率最低,ＡＲＩ计分最高;湿棉球擦拭酸蚀牙面组及以酒精棉球擦拭酸蚀牙面组托槽脱落率较高,ＡＲＩ计分较低,后二者与前者相比,托槽脱落率存在着显著差异。结论该结果提示,以气水枪冲洗酸蚀牙面是防止托槽脱落的一个重要方法     

正畸托槽及牙面残余粘接剂的去除方法研究进展

正畸治疗结束后拆除矫治器时,需要完全去除牙面上的残余粘接剂,同时尽可能减少对釉质的损伤,恢复和保护釉质表面的完整形态。矫治过程中托槽及附件脱落需要重新粘接时,也需要完全去除托槽及附件上的残余粘接剂。本文针对托槽和牙面上残余粘接剂的各种去除方法进行综述。     

喷粉与抛光技术去除牙面外源性染色的临床应用

目的 观察喷粉洁牙和牙面系列抛光技术牙齿外源性染色的效果。方法 观察1056例，喷粉操作由Microprep完成，牙面抛光用Sper-snap dit a砂碟完成。结果 牙面抛光后达到镜面样外观，牙齿无疼痛及敏感症发生。结论 喷粉加抛光可以快速、有效、无痛达到美牙目的。     

Enamel surface roughness after debonding: Comparison of two different burs

Objective:To test the hypotheses that (1) there is no significant difference between the effects of two burs on the surface roughness of enamel after orthodontic debonding, and (2) there is no difference between resin removal times of the two burs.Materials and Methods:The crowns of 20 premolars were embedded in acrylic blocks, and the buccal surfaces were subjected to atomic force microscopy (AFM), with measurement of initial roughness values. The brackets were bonded with a light-cured adhesive and were debonded with a debonding plier. In half of samples, adhesive remnants were removed with a tungsten carbide bur, whereas a fiber-reinforced composite bur was used in the other half. The second AFM measurements were made after resin removal. Duration of removal procedures was also recorded. Results of roughness and duration measurements were analyzed with the use of repeated measurements analysis of variance and independent t-tests, respectively.Results:The two resin removal instruments had significantly different effects on enamel roughness; higher average roughness (Sa) (P < .001), root mean square roughness (Sq) (P  =  .046), and maximum roughness depth (Smax) (P < .001) values were obtained with use of the tungsten carbide bur. Time required for resin removal with the composite bur was significantly greater than time required with the carbide bur (P < .001).Conclusion:The hypothesis is rejected. The composite bur used for resin removal creates smoother surfaces after orthodontic bonding; however, the process takes longer than it does when the tungsten carbide bur is used.     

两种方法去除正畸牙面树脂粘结剂的效果评价

目的 评价两种去除正畸粘结剂及处理釉质表面方法的效果,为临床去除釉质粘结剂提供参考。 方法 选择正畸拔除的前磨牙30个,常规粘结托槽后去除托槽,将其随机分为两组,每组15个,分别使用金钢砂车针和碳钨钻,磨除残留牙体表面粘结剂,记录操作所用时间,用抛光杯抛光后用原子力显微镜测定釉质表面的粗糙度。 结果 金刚砂车针和碳钨钻去除正畸粘结剂操作时间无明显差异, 实验结果显示用碳钨钻磨除粘结剂的釉质表面粗糙度明显小于金钢砂车针, 有明显统计学差异。结论 碳钨钻去除金属托槽粘结剂方法对牙面的影响小于金刚砂车针。     

正畸托槽去除后两种釉质抛光法对比研究--釉质扫描电镜观察

目的：观察去除黏结后釉质表面不同处理方法对牙齿表面结构的影响，为临床提供一种新的釉质抛光方法。方法：选择因正畸治疗需拔除4个第一前磨牙的患者8例，共32个牙。不同的个体，按同名牙分成4组，每组8个，分别用常规的方法和釉质处理仪进行牙面抛光处理，同时记录抛光时间，拔除后，测量其表面粗糙度Ra，然后扫描电镜观察。结果：正畸过程中釉质组织结构有变化，釉质处理仪抛光牙面优于常规方法，Ra值釉质处理仪组可以达到常规组的抛光效果，且效率提高。结论：釉质处理仪对牙表面的处理结果可以达到临床要求。     

Porcelain refinishing with two different polishing systems after orthodontic debonding

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of two polishing systems on the surface roughness of three types of porcelain after orthodontic debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 90 porcelain discs were fabricated from feldspathic (n = 30), leucite-based (n = 30) or lithia disilicate-based (n = 30) ceramics. Ten samples in each group served as the control and received no surface treatment. The remaining 60 samples in three of the porcelain groups were bonded with lower incisor brackets and debonded using a testing machine in shear mode at a rate of 1 mm/minute crosshead speed. After debonding, the remaining adhesive resin was removed with a tungsten carbide bur. Then, two experimental subgroups (10 each) in each porcelain group were treated as follows: in the first subgroup, porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste were applied, whereas in the second, polishing was performed using a series of Sof-Lex discs. The average surface roughness (Ra) of the all samples was evaluated using SPM/AFM (surface probe microscope/atomic force microscope). Data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance for each porcelain material and polishing method. RESULTS: The polishing techniques affected surface roughness significantly. There were significant differences between the groups; higher Ra values were obtained with the use of porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste (P < .001). CONCLUSION: The application of Sof-Lex discs can produce smoother porcelain surfaces than porcelain polishing wheel and polishing paste.     

Efficacy of auxiliary devices for removal of fluorescent residue after bracket debonding

Objective:To evaluate four protocols for removal of fluorescent materials after bracket debonding.Materials and Methods:Resin removal from 40 bovine enamel surfaces was performed according to groups (n = 10): conventional (C), white LED (W), LED that evidenced fluorescence (F), and fluorescent lens (FL). The following analyses were performed: sample thickness, superficial area of resin residue, and areas of resin residue or worn enamel in depth. ANOVA and Tukey tests were used to analyze sample thickness (P ≤ .05). Area measurements were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn''s tests (P ≤ .05).Results:The FL group showed the highest reduction in enamel thickness. F group final thickness was similar to that of other groups. The largest superficial areas of resin residue were found for the C and W groups, while the FL group had the greatest removal of resin residue. The C group exhibited the largest area in depth of resin residue. The FL and F groups exhibited the most loss of enamel with the least amount of resin residue; in contrast, the C and W groups presented the fewest areas of worn enamel and the most areas of resin residue.Conclusion:Auxiliary devices were useful for removal of fluorescent residue after bracket debonding.     

Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding

OBJECTIVE: To compare the shear bond strength and determine the area of residual adhesive on teeth after the debonding of brackets bonded with two types of orthodontic adhesives. These were a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji ORTHO LC, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and a resin applied as a precoated bracket (APC bracket, 3M Unitek GmbH, Seefeld, Germany). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 premolar teeth were randomly divided into two groups, and brackets were bonded according to the manufacturers' instructions. In group 1, the teeth were conditioned using 10% polyacrylic acid, and the brackets were bonded using Fuji Ortho LC in wet condition. In group 2, the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid, and the APC brackets were bonded. Bond strength was measured using a testing instrument (2000S, Lloyds Instruments, Fareham, England) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the residual adhesive was quantified using a three-dimensional laser scanning instrument. RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney test showed that the median bond strength of group 1 was significantly lower than that of group 2 (P < .001). A Pearson chi-square test of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) revealed a significant difference among the groups tested. All the adhesives in group 1 failed at the enamel/adhesive interface (100%), whereas group 2 exhibited cohesive failure of the adhesive (90%). CONCLUSIONS: The bond strength values obtained with the RMGIC were above the minimum values suggested in the literature to achieve a clinically effective adhesion in orthodontics.