预置粘接剂托槽的抗剪切强度

目的本研究目的是检测预置粘接剂(Adhesive Precoated,APC)托槽粘接后的抗剪切强度,并与传统的正畸托槽粘接后的抗剪切强度进行对比研究。材料与方法研究中使用50个离体前磨牙,随机分为5组,每组10个样本。按照相应的步骤在牙釉质是粘接托槽。组1:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后用光固化树脂粘接剂(Transbond XT)粘接金属托槽;组2:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后粘接 APC 托槽;组3:釉质表面使用自酸蚀偶联剂,然后用光固化树脂粘接剂粘接金属托槽;组4:釉质表面使用自酸蚀偶联剂,然后粘接 APC 托槽;组5:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后用化学固化树脂粘接剂(Unite)粘接金属托槽。用材料力学实验机对托槽施加剪切力,检测每组样本的抗剪切强度和粘接材料残留指数(ARI)。结果每组的平均抗剪切强度分别为组1:11.37±6.62兆帕(MPa);组2:11.08±4.63兆帕;组3:11.62±6.88兆帕;组4:10.96±5.94兆帕;组5:14.41±6.34兆帕。方差分析表明,5组之间的粘接强度的差异没有显著的统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论预置粘接剂托槽可以有足够的粘接强度供临床使用。     

不同正畸粘接系统在托槽再粘接中的应用评价

目的：检测使用不同正畸粘接系统再粘接托槽对其剪切粘接强度的影响,以探讨提高临床再粘接效率的方法。方法：选择60颗正畸减数的恒双尖牙,依据不同粘接系统随机分为3组：津京釉质粘接剂（A组）、TransbondXT光固化粘接系统（B组）及Transbond自酸蚀粘接系统（C组）。所有样本均先用津京釉质粘接剂粘接托槽,24h后去除托槽重新粘接新托槽,测量3组托槽再粘接的剪切强度及粘接剂残留指数（AdhesiveRemnantIndex,ARI）。结果：3组托槽再粘接剪切强度分别为（8．615±2．460）MPa、（8．807±1．801）MPa及（8．144±3．023）MPa,组间剪切强度差异无显著性;ARI评分表明：C组牙面上残留的粘接剂明显少于其他两组。结论：采用自酸蚀粘接系统再粘接托槽的剪切强度与其它两种粘接系统相当,并且去除托槽后牙面残留粘接剂较少。     

不同酸蚀时间托槽与牙面间抗拉粘接力研究

目的　测量不同酸蚀时间托槽与牙面间的粘接力 ,以探讨正畸临床上粘接托槽于牙面的最佳酸蚀时间。方法　选择 80颗正畸减数的恒双尖牙 ,根据托槽酸蚀时间 (1 5s和 6 0s)和施力方向 (0°和 4 5°)的不同 ,随机分为 4组 ,每组 2 0颗 ,用MTSNEW81 0 1 0 0KN液压伺服材料实验机测量托槽剪切粘接强度 ,并评价牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量。结果　 1 5s酸蚀组托槽剪切粘接强度小于 6 0s酸蚀组 ,1 5s酸蚀组最小托槽剪切粘接强度均值为 5 86 2 5MPa;1 5s酸蚀组牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量明显少于 6 0s酸蚀组。结论　 1 5s酸蚀组剪切粘接强度虽然小于 6 0s酸蚀组 ,但已能满足正畸临床需要 ,且 1 5s较 6 0s酸蚀组牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量少 ,临床去除托槽时操作时间短 ,可提高工作效率.     

四种正畸粘接剂对金属托槽粘接效果的评价

目的比较4种正畸粘接剂对金属托槽的粘接效果。方法选择正畸临床44例患者,792颗牙,随机分为4组,常规牙面处理,分别按照说明书要求用京津釉质粘接剂、GC树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂、3M化学固化型树脂粘接剂和3M光固化树脂粘接剂粘接金属托槽,然后使用MBT矫治技术进行综合性正畸治疗,记录托槽脱落情况。12个月后,评估每组牙的牙釉质脱矿情况,并对所有数据进行统计学分析。结果 3M光固化型树脂粘接剂组托槽的脱落率低于京津釉质粘接剂组,差异有显著性(P<0.05),而其余各组间托槽脱落率的比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。京津釉质粘接剂组造成釉质脱矿程度在4组中最高,而GC树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂的釉质脱矿程度最低,其差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论京津釉质粘接剂相对远期粘接效果较差;GC树脂改良型玻璃离子粘接剂能够通过释放氟离子有效降低釉质脱矿的发生,是正畸治疗中较为理想的粘接材料,具有良好的临床应用前景。     

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。     

自酸蚀偶联剂不同作用时间对托槽与牙面剪切粘接强度影响的研究

目的测量自酸蚀偶联剂不同作用时间下托槽与牙面间剪切粘接强度,以探讨正畸临床上运用自酸蚀偶联剂粘接托槽的最佳作用时间.方法选择48颗正畸减数的恒双尖牙,随机分为四组,自酸蚀偶联剂作用时间分别为5秒、15秒、30秒和60秒.所有样本均用光固化粘接剂粘接托槽.半小时后测量四组的剪切粘接强度(Shear bond strength,SBS)及粘接剂残留指数(Adhesive remnant index,ARI),并通过扫描电子显微镜观察树脂-牙釉质界面形态学改变.结果四组托槽与牙面平均剪切粘接强度范围5.1609 Mpa～5.5146 Mpa,组间剪切粘接强度无显著性差异(p＞0.05);ARI评分表明自酸蚀偶联剂作用时间为60秒时,牙面上残留的粘接剂明显多于其他三组;电镜观察结果显示随着自酸蚀偶联剂作用时间的延长,树脂突的形态更规则,结构更致密.结论自酸蚀偶联剂作用时间在5～60秒范围内较厂家推荐时间延长或缩短均不会影响其剪切粘接强度.     

自酸蚀粘接技术在正畸粘接中的应用评价

目的 :酸蚀粘接托槽是固定矫治技术中的一个重要步骤 ,如何在一些易受污染的粘接环境中有效地提高托槽粘接的效率和成功率 ,是每个正畸医生都感兴趣的课题。本研究对在干性和唾液污染两种正畸粘接环境中应用自酸蚀粘接技术作一评估。方法 :选取 6 0颗新鲜离体年轻恒双尖牙 ,随机均匀分成三组粘接托槽 (3M公司 0 .0 2 2系列标准方丝弓双尖牙托槽 ) ,A组 :在干性环境下Unite(3M)化学固化型粘接剂粘接托槽 ,作为对照组 ;B组 :在干性环境下Self etchingprimer(自酸蚀封闭剂 3M) +TransbondXT(光固化粘接剂 3M)粘接托槽 ;C组 :在唾液污染环境下以Self etchingprimer(自酸蚀封闭剂 3M) +TransbondXT(光固化粘接剂3M)粘接托槽。粘接结束半小时后利用Zwick材料测试机 (德国 )对各个样本进行剪切强度测试 ,通过SAS统计软件包比较三组的剪切强度及ARI评分。结果 :B组和C组的剪切强度分别为 7.79Mpa和 6 .5 2Mpa,与A组 (13.7Mpa)存在显著性差异 ,但仍在临床可接受范围 (6 8Mpa)之内 ,B组与C组之间无显著性差异。三组粘接剂残留指数比较显示应用自酸蚀粘接技术的样本在去托槽后仅有少量粘接剂残留在牙面上。结论 :本研究认为Self etchingprimer+Transbond所构成的自酸蚀粘接技术是一种可行的粘接手段 ,尤其在某     

含氟牙釉质粘接剂渗入酸蚀后牙面钉突长度的研究

托槽直接粘接技术中重要的一环是酸蚀牙釉质表面 ,会使牙釉质表面脱钙 ,增加患龋的危险性[1] 。近年来 ,国外正畸界推出了多种含氟粘接剂 ,期望通过其缓慢释放的氟离子的作用 ,达到预防龋齿的目的。已有研究表明 ,与传统的不含氟粘接剂相比 ,含氟粘接剂能使托槽周围的牙釉质脱钙明显减少。但有些研究认为氟化钙颗粒的形成可能会影响托槽的粘接强度[2 ] 。作者对含氟粘接剂与不含氟粘接剂剪切强度的研究表明 ,两者差异并无显著性[3 ] 。本项研究旨在通过测试该二种粘接剂渗入酸蚀后牙釉质表面形成的树脂钉突长度 ,进一步研究含氟粘接剂的粘接强度。1 材料与方法 :随机获取上海籍 12～ 14岁正畸患者的新鲜离体前磨牙 30颗 ,均分为 3组。 10颗以 3Ｍ公司ＣｏｎｃｉｓｅＴＭ牙釉质粘接剂粘接托槽 ,作为对照组 (Ｃ组 ) ;10颗以可见光固化ＦｌｕｏｒｏＢｏｎｄＴＭ封闭剂及ＣｏｎｃｉｓｅＴＭ牙釉质粘接剂粘接托槽 ,为Ａ组 ;10颗以化学固化ＦｌｕｏｒｏＢｏｎｄＴＭ 封闭剂及ＣｏｎｃｉｓｅＴＭ牙釉质粘接剂粘接托槽 ,为Ｂ组。清洁离体牙颊面 ,吹干 ,以 37%磷酸酸蚀 1/2牙颊面 6 0ｓ ,另 1/2不作酸蚀 ,分别...     

两种含氟粘接系统对托槽粘接性能的临床研究

目的：研究含氟自酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统粘接正畸托槽的临床效果。方法：随机选取39名正畸患者,均分为三组,以自酸蚀粘接系统、牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统和京津釉质粘接系统两两组合分别于患者双侧牙面粘接托槽,随访12个月,记录3种粘接系统的托槽脱落率。结果：3种粘接体系粘接托槽的脱落率无统计学差异。结论：自酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统对托槽的粘接效果与京津釉质粘接剂无显著性差异。     

酸蚀时间对乳牙釉质表面结构及树脂抗剪粘接强度的影响

目的:研究酸蚀时间对乳牙釉质表面形态、树脂-釉质粘接强度及界面结构的影响,确定乳牙的最佳酸蚀时间.方法:选取12颗乳牙,随机分为4组,按照15、30、60、120 s时间,采用GLUMA Etch 20 GEL酸蚀乳牙唇而釉质,扫描电镜观察其表而结构;另选取48颗乳牙,将内径4 mm,高2 mm的铜圈用蜡固定在乳牙唇面,按分组方法进行酸蚀.吹干;按照Gluma粘接系统及树脂操作方法.形成柱状光固化复合树脂修复体,其中40个试样用万能测试机测试其抗剪粘接强度;剩余8个试样采用金刚砂片垂直于树脂牙釉质结合面切开,扫描电镜观察其界而结构.结果:乳牙酸蚀30 s和60 s时釉质表面呈均匀的鱼鳞状结构,酸蚀15 s 时釉质表面只有极少部分鱼鳞状,而120 s时釉质鱼鳞状结构消失.牙本质小管暴露;酸蚀15、30、60、120 s组的树脂-釉质粘接强度分别为5.34、10.59、12.22、3.73 MPa;扣描电镜显示树脂-釉质界面结构30 S组和60 S组有长树脂突形成,而15 s组和120 s组界面几乎旱平面,无长树脂突形成.结论:乳牙酸蚀的最佳时间足30～60 s间.     

不同黏结剂和黏结方法对托槽周围微渗漏的影响

目的：观察、比较不同黏结材料、不同酸蚀方法黏结正畸金属托槽后的微渗漏情况。方法：选择因正畸拔除的健康前磨牙36颗,随机分成3组,每组12颗。A组：37％磷酸酸蚀,京津釉质黏结剂黏结金属托槽;B组：37％磷酸酸蚀．3M Transbond光固化黏结剂黏结;C组：自酸蚀系统＋3M Transbond光固化黏结剂。所有样本进行冷热循环,1％亚甲蓝溶液染色后．立体显微镜下观察并测量各组托槽周围微渗漏情况。用SPSS 11．0统计软件对试验结果先进行方差齐性检验,F检验有统计学意义,进一步用Q检验进行组间比较。结果：①3组间微渗漏差别有统计学意义（F=22．462．P〈0．01）,两两比较发现,A组与B组的微渗漏差别无统计学意义（P〉0．05）;而A、B组均较C组的微渗漏小,差别有显著性（P〈0．05）。②3组龈方微渗漏均大于[牙合]方,差别有统计学意义（分别为P〈0．05、P〈0．01、P〈0．01）。结论：①微渗漏的大小与黏结剂的种类无明显关系。②不同酸蚀方法间的微渗漏差别明显,自酸蚀组较磷酸酸蚀组的微渗漏明显大。③同种材料、同种酸蚀方法,托槽龈方微渗漏明显大于[牙合]方。     

An evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths achieved with self-etching primer.

The bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel is a multistep process. To simplify bonding and decrease chair time, Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) has been introduced; the primer combines the etching, rinsing, and priming steps. This in vitro study evaluated the shear bond strengths and interoperator variability of self-etching primer, as compared with conventional phosphoric acid etching with 2 common orthodontic resins. A total of 214 teeth were bonded, according to the following protocols: group A: self-etching primer plus Transbond XT light-cured resin (3M Unitek); group B: 35% phosphoric acid (15 seconds) plus Transbond XT resin; and group C: 37% phosphoric acid (15 seconds) plus Enlight bonding resin (Ormco, Glendora, Calif). Significantly higher bond strengths were seen in group B than in group A (P =.004) and group C (P =.002). The mean shear bond strengths of group A were not significantly different from those of group C (P =.99). When 3 orthodontists bonded a total of 60 premolars using the protocols of groups A and B, significant differences in shear bond strengths and strength ranking were found. The mean values they obtained using the self-etching primer were not significantly different, but significant differences in mean values were found between operators when the phosphoric acid-etching technique was used.     

Effects of self-etching primer on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets at different debond times

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of a self-etching primer on shear bond strengths (SBS) at the different debond times of 5, 15, 30, and 60 minutes and 24 hours. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Brackets were bonded to human premolars with different etching protocols. In the control group (conventional method [CM]) teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. In the study group, a self-etching primer (SEP; Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was applied as recommended by the manufacturer. Brackets were bonded with light-cure adhesive paste (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek) and light-cured for 20 seconds in both groups. The shear bond test was performed at the different debond times of 5, 15, 30 and 60 minutes and 24 hours. RESULTS: Lowest SBS was attained with a debond time of 5 minutes for the CM group (9.51 MPa) and the SEP group (8.97 MPa). Highest SBS was obtained with a debond time of 24 hours for the CM group (16.82 MPa) and the SEP group (19.11 MPa). Statistically significant differences between the two groups were not observed for debond times of 5, 15, 30, or 60 minutes. However, the SBS values obtained at 24 hours were significantly different (P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Adequate SBS was obtained with self-etching primer during the first 60 minutes (5, 15, 30 and 60 minutes) when compared with the conventional method. It is reliable to load the bracket 5 minutes after bonding using self-etching primer (Transbond Plus) with the light-cure adhesive (Transbond XT).     

Microshear bond strength of resin composite to teeth affected by molar hypomineralization using 2 adhesive systems

PURPOSE: When restoring hypomineralized first permanent molars, placement of cavo-surface margins can be difficult to ascertain due to uncertainty of the bonding capability of the tooth surface. The purpose of this study was to investigate the adhesion of resin composite bonded to control and hypomineralized enamel with an all-etch single-bottle adhesive or self-etching primer adhesive. METHODS: Specimens of control enamel (N=44) and hypomineralized enamel (N=45) had a 0.975-mm diameter composite rod (Filtek Supreme Universal Restorative) bonded with either 3M ESPE Single Bond or Clearfil SE Bond following manufacturers' instructions. Specimens were stressed in shear at 1 mm/min to failure (microshear bond strength). Etched enamel surfaces and enamel-adhesive interfaces were examined under scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The microshear bond strength (MPa) of resin composite bonded to hypomineralized enamel was significantly lower than for control enamel (3M ESPE Single Bond=7.08 +/- 4.90 vs 16.27 +/- 10.04; Clearfil SE Bond=10.39 +/- 7.56 vs 19.63 +/- 7.42; P=.001). Fractures were predominantly adhesive in control enamel and cohesive in hypomineralized enamel. Scotchbond etchant produced deep interprismatic and intercrystal porosity in control enamel and shallow etch patterns with minimal intercrystal porosity in hypomineralized enamel. Control enamel appeared almost unaffected by SE Primer; hypomineralized enamel showed shallow etching. The hypomineralized enamel-adhesive interface was porous with cracks in the enamel. The control enamel-adhesive interface displayed a hybrid layer of even thickness. CONCLUSIONS: The microshear bond strength of resin composite bonded to hypomineralized enamel was significantly lower than for control enamel. This was supported by differences seen in etch patterns and at the enamel-adhesive interface.     

Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer

Objective:To comparatively assess the failure rate of adhesive precoated (APC) self-ligating metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques: self-etching primer (SEP) and conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM).Materials and Methods:Fifty-seven patients with complete permanent dentition were included in this study. A total of 1140 APC self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, SEP (Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek) and CM (37% phosphoric acid) were used in alternate quadrants. All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth. The number, site, and date of first-time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment (mean, 22 months). The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (P < .05). The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface.Results:The bond failure rates were 2.97% and 2.18% for the CM and SEP, respectively. No statistically significant difference in failure rates was found between the groups. The bond failure sites were predominantly at the enamel-adhesive interface in both groups.Conclusion:This long-term in vivo study showed that the combined use of SEP and the APC bracket system can be used effectively for bonding brackets after pumicing the enamel surfaces in clinical orthodontics.     

An in-vitro investigation into the use of a single component self-etching primer adhesive system for orthodontic bonding: a pilot study

OBJECTIVE: This pilot study assessed force to debond (N); time, and site of bond failure of a single component self-etching primer (SEP) and adhesive system, Ideal 1 (GAC International Inc., USA) and compared it with the conventional acid etch and rinse regimen using 37% o-phosphoric acid solution and either Transbond XT (3M Unitek) or Ideal 1 adhesive. DESIGN: In vitro laboratory study. SETTING: Bristol Dental Hospital, UK. Sept 2003-Sept 2004. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Nine groups of 20 premolars were bonded using metal orthodontic brackets using three protocols: (1) 37% o-phosphoric acid etch and Transbond XT adhesive; (2) 37% o-phosphoric acid and Ideal 1 adhesive; (3) Ideal 1 SEP and Ideal 1 adhesive. Force to debond and locus of bond failure were determined at three time intervals. RESULTS: Enamel pre-treatment prior to bonding, namely SEP versus conventional etching had no significant effect on the median force to debond with the Ideal 1 adhesive. Similarly, when the enamel was conventionally etched, the adhesive type, namely Ideal 1 or Transbond XT, had no significant effect on the measured force to debond. However, there appeared to be differences in the locus of bond failure: failure predominated at the enamel/adhesive interface for the Transbond XT conventional etch group and at adhesive/bracket interface for the Ideal 1 SEP and adhesive group and the Ideal 1 adhesive conventional etch group. CONCLUSION: These results suggested that the complete Ideal 1 SEP and adhesive system might be successful in vivo leading therefore to a clinical trial. However, implications for clean up time are discussed and improvements to in vitro study designs are advised.     

Bond strength comparison and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of three orthodontic bonding systems

This study sought to assess the efficacy of two self-etching primer systems (Transbond Plus and Beauty Ortho Bond) on orthodontic brackets. Therefore, shear bond strengths and bracket-adhesive failure modes (ARI scores) were determined and compared against an etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Transbond XT) under two experimental conditions (dry and saliva application). Shear bond strength test was performed at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, while enamel surfaces and enamel-adhesive interfaces were examined with SEM. There were no significant differences between Transbond XT (9.15 MPa) and Transbond Plus (9.74 MPa) under the dry condition, whereas that of Beauty Ortho Bond (6.47 MPa) was significantly lower than these two systems. Under SEM examination, both self-etching primers showed a milder etching effect and decreased depth of resin penetration into intact enamel than Transbond XT. In conclusion, results of this study showed that both self-etching systems seemed to offer more merits than conventional acid etching because of fewer irreversible changes to enamel.     

Self-etching primer and a non-rinse conditioner versus phosphoric acid: alternative methods for bonding brackets

The objective of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a self-etching primer, Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP, 3M Unitek), and a non-rinse conditioner (NRC, Dentsply DeTrey) for bonding brackets, compared with the acid-etch technique. The brackets were bonded to extracted premolars using Transbond XT (3M Unitek). One of the following three conditioning protocols were used: (1) 37 per cent phosphoric acid (n = 25), (2) TSEP (n = 25), and (3) NRC (n = 15). Shear bond strength (SBS) was measured with a universal testing machine. The adhesive remaining after debonding was determined using image analysis equipment. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations were also carried out on 12 premolars to observe the enamel surfaces. No significant differences were observed in SBS between the three groups (P = 0.56). TSEP and NRC left significantly less adhesive on the tooth than the traditional acid-etch technique (P = 0.004 and P = 0.000, respectively). NRC left significantly less adhesive than TSEP (P = 0.001). SEM observations showed that NRC produced a less aggressive etch pattern than TSEP, and that the etching effect of TSEP approximated that of phosphoric acid.     

Shear bond strength of precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the shear bond strength or the adhesive remaining on the tooth after debonding between precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: APC Plus precoated brackets and uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive using the self-etching primer Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP). The brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars and categorized into two groups: (1) TPSEP/Transbond XT and (2) TPSEP/APC Plus. Shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant on each tooth after debonding was quantified with image analysis equipment. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations of enamel surfaces treated with TPSEP were also carried out. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the shear bond strengths for the two groups evaluated (P < .05). TPSEP/APC Plus left significantly less adhesive on the tooth after debonding than did TPSEP/Transbond XT (P < .05). It was observed that SEM left a porous and potentially retentive surface. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the bond strength of the two systems tested, but there was a significant difference in the percentage of area of adhesive remaining on the tooth.     

复合树脂联合两种酸蚀粘结剂与乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度比较

目的:比较复合树脂联合全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂与乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度。方法:收集新鲜拔除的滞留乳磨牙48个,随机分为4组,分别制备全酸蚀和自酸蚀粘结剂的釉质和牙本质试件,电子万能试验机测定各组剪切强度;体视显微镜下观察试件断面的破坏模式;扫描电镜观察粘结界面情况。结果:全酸蚀粘结剂组的釉质剪切强度明显高于牙本质剪切强度(P<0.05);自酸蚀粘结剂组釉质与牙本质剪切粘结强度无统计学差异(P>0.05);全酸蚀粘结剂组的釉质、牙本质剪切粘结强度均明显高于自酸蚀粘结剂组(P<0.05);体视显微镜及扫描电镜观察均显示,全酸蚀粘结剂与釉质和牙本质的粘结界面结合程度好于自酸蚀粘结剂。结论:全酸蚀粘结剂处理对乳牙釉质及牙本质的剪切粘结强度高于自酸蚀粘结剂。