3类修复体经3种瓷表面处理后与陶瓷托槽的粘结强度及去托槽后的瓷表面情况

目的研究3种瓷表面处理方法对3类修复体与陶瓷托槽粘结强度的影响以及去除托槽后瓷表面的情况。方法钴铬烤瓷、e-max铸瓷、二氧化锆全瓷3类修复体试件各36个,每类试件随机分为4组。除对照组为6个试件,其余各组每组10个试件。对照组不作任何处理。喷砂组,氧化铝喷砂4 s,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。磷酸组,质量分数37%磷酸酸蚀1 min,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。氢氟酸组,氢氟酸酸蚀2 min,冲洗、吹干后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂。使用光固化托槽粘结剂粘结陶瓷托槽。经37℃恒温水浴24 h后检测抗剪强度。观察托槽去除后瓷表面粘结剂残留情况和瓷面破损情况。结果 3种表面处理方法均能达到或超过有效粘结强度。采用喷砂并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法和氢氟酸酸蚀并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法,钴铬烤瓷试件的抗剪强度与e-max铸瓷和二氧化锆全瓷试件比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);磷酸酸蚀并涂布硅烷偶联剂方法中,3类修复体的抗剪强度差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。3类修复体在使用氢氟酸并硅烷偶联剂处理后,抗剪强度较其他2种方法高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。磷酸组的3类修复体瓷表面粘结剂残留指数得分最低,粘接剂残留最少,且瓷表面破坏最小。结论喷砂、磷酸酸蚀、氢氟酸酸蚀合并使用硅烷偶联剂处理钴铬烤瓷、e-max铸瓷、二氧化锆全瓷修复体,均能得到满意的粘结强度,而磷酸结合硅烷偶联剂方法去除托槽后对修复体表面的影响最小。     

不同表面处理方法对陶瓷托槽与不同瓷修复体粘结强度影响的研究

目的:评价不同瓷修复体试件经过3种表面处理方法后与陶瓷托槽粘结强度的关系。方法:钴铬烤瓷、铸瓷、锆瓷及聚合瓷4类试件经过喷砂(SB)、氢氟酸酸蚀(HFA)、喷砂+酸蚀(SB+HFA)处理后表面涂布硅烷偶联剂(SCA),再粘接陶瓷托槽,经37 ℃恒温水浴24 h 后检测粘接强度(SBS),扫描电镜观察托槽粘接前修复体表面的粗糙度及去除后修复体表面粘接剂残留情况。结果:钴铬烤瓷、铸瓷和聚合瓷试件的抗剪切强度分别与锆瓷试件比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);钴铬烤瓷和铸瓷试件的抗剪强度比较差异无统计学意义。扫描电镜结果显示4组试件表面粗糙度都有明显增加。而喷砂组和喷砂+酸蚀组试件表面的粗糙度明显高于酸蚀处理组;喷砂和喷砂+酸蚀组的表面处理效果差异不大,喷砂组的4类试件表面粘结剂残留最少。结论:3种表面处理方法均能满足临床正畸的需求。喷砂组去除托槽后对试件表面的影响最小,喷砂联合酸蚀处理并不能显著增加剪切强度。 [关键词] 陶瓷托槽 剪切强度 瓷修复体 表面处理     

不同偶联剂和粘接剂对烤瓷瓷面与金属托槽抗剪切强度影响的体外研究

目的研究不同类型硅烷偶联剂和粘接剂对烤瓷瓷面与金属托槽之间抗剪切强度的影响。方法将90个烤瓷瓷面行水砂纸打磨去釉,HF酸蚀处理,根据硅烷偶联剂的不同随机分为甲乙丙3组,再根据使用粘接剂不同每组下分3小组,分别用3种不同粘接剂,将90个金属托槽粘接于烤瓷瓷面,托槽粘结60 min后经37℃恒温人工唾液水浴孵化24 h,使用Instron万能材料力学试验机测定样本抗剪切强度。结果使用硅烷偶联剂组抗剪切强度比未使用硅烷偶联剂组大(P<0.05);2种硅烷偶联剂组之间抗剪切强度差异无显著性(P>0.05);光固化复合树脂粘接剂组抗剪切强度大于其他粘接剂组(P<0.05);未使用硅烷偶联剂组瓷面破损指数明显小于使用硅烷偶联剂组(P<0.05)。结论硅烷偶联剂能有效增加烤瓷瓷面和金属托槽之间的抗剪切强度,光固化复合树脂粘接剂与双组份硅烷偶联剂合用可获得最大的抗剪切强度。     

3种自酸蚀粘结剂粘结托槽的剪切强度比较

目的:比较3种自酸蚀粘结剂粘结正畸托槽时的剪切粘结强度。方法:将36颗人前磨牙随机均分为3组,分别用3种自酸蚀粘结剂:改良一步法自酸蚀粘结系统Adper Prompt L-Pop Self Etch Adhesive(组1)、释氟抗菌型自酸蚀粘结系统Clearfil Protect Bond(组2)、释氟型自酸蚀粘结系统Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer(组3)粘结金属托槽,用万能应力测试机测试其剪切粘结强度,在体式显微镜下评价各组牙齿表面的剩余粘结剂指数,并进行统计学分析。结果:单因素方差分析显示各组间的剪切粘结强度有显著性差异(P<0.05),组2的剪切粘结强度最高,组1和组3间的剪切粘结强度差异无统计学意义。Kruskal-Wallis检验表明各组的剩余粘结剂指数无差别(P>0.05)。结论:3种自酸蚀粘结剂粘结托槽的剪切粘结强度存在一定的差异,但均能满足正畸临床治疗的需求。     

瓷表面处理对正畸托槽与瓷黏结抗剪强度的影响

目的:探讨不同瓷表面处理技术对正畸托槽与瓷黏结抗剪强度的影响。方法:采用4组不同的瓷表面处理方式,使用光固化正畸黏结剂将瓷面分别与金属和陶瓷托槽黏结,每组再平均分为2组分别在37℃水浴24h和7d后冷热循环500次(5～55℃),测量黏结抗剪强度,并统计其黏结剂残留指数,在扫描电镜下观察其瓷面显微结构的变化。结果:4种瓷表面处理技术对2种不同材料托槽处理的结果近似,均可达到有效正畸黏结强度。结论:磷酸酸蚀结合硅烷偶联剂是正畸托槽与瓷黏结的较佳方式之一。     

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。     

金属托槽与瓷面粘接强度的实验研究

目的研究瓷面处理对金属托槽与瓷面粘接强度的影响。方法180个烤瓷试件按不同瓷面处理随机分3组：氧化铝喷砂组；金刚砂车针打磨组；9．6％氢氟酸（HF）酸蚀组。再根据是否使用硅烷偶联剂及粘接剂不同分为4组，每组15个试件。粘接剂为京津釉质粘接剂及3M UniteTM粘接剂。托槽粘接后检测抗剪切强度。结果不同处理方式，使用偶联剂前后平均抗剪切强度均有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论瓷面经处理后使用硅烷偶联剂粘接托槽，可达到满意的粘结强度。     

不同粘接材料及表面处理方法对瓷与托槽粘结强度的影响

目的：探讨不同粘接材料及不同表面处理方法对瓷与托槽粘结强度的影响。方法：将烤瓷试样按喷砂＋氢氟酸酸蚀＋陶瓷偶联剂、喷砂＋氢氟酸酸蚀、喷砂＋陶瓷偶联剂分成A、B、C三组进行不同方法表面处理,然后分别用3M光固化型、3M化学固化型、西湖巴尔化学固化型、京津化学固化型釉质粘结剂粘结金属托槽。力学材料试验机上剪切法去除托槽,测定各自的抗剪切强度,并用ARI积分法记录托槽去除后瓷面上粘接剂残留指数,以上所有数据进行统计分析。结果：无论抗剪切强度还是瓷面上粘接剂残留指数,A、B组均大于C组（P＜0．05）,A、B组间无差异（P＞0．05）;3M光固化型粘结剂大于3M化学固化型、杭州西湖化学固化型粘结剂（P＜0．05）,3M化学固化型、杭州西湖化学固化型两种粘结剂间无差异（P＞0．05）,3M化学固化型、杭州西湖化学固化型两种粘结剂大于京津化学固化型粘结剂（P＜0．05）,3M光固化型粘结剂显著大于京津化学固化粘结剂（P＜0．01）。结论：喷砂结合氢氟酸酸蚀瓷面粘结托槽效果较好,陶瓷偶联剂并不能增加其粘结强度;3M光固化粘结剂在瓷面上粘结效果最好,3M化学固化粘结剂、杭州西湖化学固化粘结剂次之,推荐使用3M光固化型粘结剂。     

激光优化金属托槽与普通金属托槽剪切强度比较的研究

目的 通过粘结强度实验比较新型的激光优化底板金属托槽和国产燕尾金属托槽的剪切粘结强度。方法 90颗因正畸需要而拔除的人类前磨牙,按照2种托槽(激光优化底板金属托槽和国产燕尾底板金属托槽)和3种储存条件(室温蒸馏水中、37℃人工唾液中、人工唾液冷热循环实验)随机均分为6组,在一定的压力下粘结托槽,并用外力使托槽与牙面分离后,测定并记录剪切粘结强度和牙釉质表面粘结剂残留指数(ARI)。结果 方差分析显示2种托槽剪切粘结强度有显著性差异(P<0.01)。结论 激光优化底板金属托槽剪切粘结强度大于国产燕尾托槽,去除托槽后牙面粘结剂残留少。     

纳米银正畸釉质粘结剂的抗菌性与机械性的体外研究

目的：将不同含量的纳米银抗菌剂添加到正畸粘结剂中,体外观察其不同时间抗菌效果及对粘结强度的影响。方法：将不同含量（质量比为0%、1%、2%、3%、4%、5%）纳米银抗菌剂添加到京津正畸釉质粘结剂中制成30mm×30mm,厚度为2mm的试验样品,及用含纳米银抗菌粘结剂粘有正畸专用托槽的离体牙,加入5mL人工唾液浸泡,每3d更换1次,用抗菌性能试验（薄膜密着法）检测不同时间不同浓度的纳米银正畸抗菌剂的抗菌效果,同时,用万能测试机检测托槽抗剪切强度,对实验结果进行统计学处理与分析。用扫描电镜观察1周和24周组添加抗菌效果最好的纳米银正畸粘结剂与空白对照组的表面培养变形性链球菌48h后,其细菌粘附情况。结果：与空白对照组相比,各组不同浓度不同时间的纳米银粘结剂抗菌率有显著差异均P〈0.05;各不同浓度间的抗剪切强度无显著差异;各不同时间的抗剪切强度有显著差异（P〈0.05）;不同时间观察的不同浓度间ARI记分无明显差异。结论：5%的纳米银釉质粘结剂与其他实验组相比具有良好的抗菌性、机械性。     

金属托槽与瓷面粘接去除后瓷破损率的比较研究

目的:研究瓷面处理及硅烷偶联剂对金属托槽与瓷面粘接去除后瓷破损率的影响。方法:300个烤瓷试件按不同瓷面处理随机分5组,A组:喷砂3s;B组:金刚砂车针打磨;C组:9.6%氢氟酸酸蚀3min。D组:37%磷酸酸蚀1min;E组:未处理组。再根据是否使用硅烷偶联剂及粘接剂不同分4组,每组15个试件。粘接剂为京津釉质粘接剂及3MUniteTM粘接剂。托槽粘接后检测抗剪切强度,记录瓷破裂指数(PFI)及瓷破损率。结果:使用偶联剂前后PFI有统计学意义(P<0.05),不同处理方式各组间PFI有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:瓷面处理及硅烷偶联剂的使用增加了粘接强度,同时增加了瓷面受损的机率。     

Tensile bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces

The aim of this study was to compare various surface treatment methods to define the procedure that produces adequate bond strength between ceramic brackets and porcelain. The specimens used in this study, 60 porcelain tabs, were produced by duplication of the labial surface of a maxillary first premolar. The 6 different preparation procedures tested were: (1) sandblasting with 50 microm aluminum oxide in a sandblasting device, (2) application of silane to the porcelain and the bracket base, (3) sandblasting followed by application of silane, (4) acid etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid, (5) acid etching with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid followed by application of silane, and (6) sandblasting followed by application of 4-Meta adhesive. The ceramic brackets were bonded with no-mix orthodontic bonding material. A bonding force testing machine was used to determine tensile bond strengths at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm per second. The results of the study showed that porcelain surface preparation with acid etching followed by silane application resulted in a statistically significant higher tensile bond strength (P < .05). Sandblasting the porcelain surface before silane treatment provided similar bond strengths, but sandblasting or acid etching alone were less effective. Silane application was recommended to bond a ceramic bracket to the porcelain surface to achieve bond strengths that are clinically acceptable.     

瓷面处理对金属托槽与瓷面粘接性能的影响

目的　研究瓷表面不同处理方法对金属托槽与瓷修复体的粘接强度及去粘接后瓷面完整性的影响。方 法　根据使用粘接剂和表面处理方法的不同,将80个瓷面随机分为8组,每组10个瓷面。分别用京津釉质粘接剂 和光固化复合树脂粘接,表面处理分别行37%磷酸酸蚀、9·6%氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、瓷面涂硅烷偶联剂4种表面 处理法。试件粘接托槽后经37℃恒温水浴24 h后测定抗剪切强度,记录去粘接后的瓷面破裂情况。对磷酸酸蚀, 氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉的瓷面进行扫描电镜观察。结果　采用氢氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、硅烷偶联剂组的粘接抗剪切 强度明显高于磷酸酸蚀组(P<0·01)。打磨去釉后用光固化复合树脂粘接及氢氟酸酸蚀或瓷表面涂硅烷处理后使 用任意一种粘接材料粘接均取得有效的粘接强度。各组去粘接后的瓷破裂率无显著性差异(P>0·05)。结论　氢 氟酸酸蚀、打磨去釉、瓷面涂硅烷偶联剂均可以明显增加金属托槽与瓷面之间的粘接抗剪切强度。瓷面涂硅烷偶 联剂是金属托槽与瓷面粘接时良好的表面处理剂。     

The effect of food simulants on porcelain-composite bonding.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the in vitro effects of food simulants on the bond strength of brackets to porcelain surfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and eighty porcelain-fused to metal specimens were fabricated. Samples were divided into 3 groups including 60 specimens each. Different surface treatment methods were applied to each group and these were: sandblasting (SB), etching with orthophosphoric acid (OPA) and etching with hydrofluoric acid (HFA). After the surface treatments, the brackets were bonded to the center of each sample with a light-curing orthodontic composite adhesive. Then each group was divided into five test subgroups and one control subgroup each consisting of 10 specimens. The test groups were conditioned for 90 days at 37 degrees C as follows: water, 0.02N citric acid, heptane, 8% ethanol aqueous solution and 50% ethanol aqueous solution. The control specimens were stored at room temperature in air. Shear force was applied to the porcelain-bracket interface by using a universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until debonding occurred. The shear bond strength was calculated by dividing the maximum load by the cross-sectional area of the bracket to give the results in megapascals (MPa). The statistical evaluations were made by using analysis of variance. Whenever a significance was detected, Bonferroni tests were performed for post hoc analyses. RESULTS: Fifty percent ethanol conditioned specimens for all surface treatment groups showed lower shear bond strength values. HFA group showed significantly higher shear bond strength values when compared with other groups (P < 0.05). For all porcelain surface treatment groups, control groups showed statistically significant higher shear bond strength values (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The results of this in vitro study show that food simulants significantly decrease the bond strength between bracket and porcelain surface.     

Evaluation of shear bond strength of composite to porcelain according to surface treatment

This study evaluated the shear bond strength of porcelain/composite using 40 metal + porcelain + composite cylindrical specimens divided into 4 groups, according to porcelain surface treatment: 1) no treatment, 2) mechanical retentions performed with diamond burs, 3) etching with phosphoric acid+silane, and 4) etching with hydrofluoric acid+silane. After being stored in distilled water at room temperature for one week, the specimens were submitted to a shear force (load) and the data were analyzed statistically (ANOVA). The means (in Mpa) of the groups were: 4.71 (group 1); 4.81 (group 2); 11.76 (group 3); 11.07 (group 4). There were no statistically significant differences between groups 1 and 2 and between groups 3 and 4.     

A comparative evaluation of shear bond strength of porcelain and composite using different bonding agents — An in vitro study

Objective

The purpose of the present in vitro study is to compare and evaluate the shear bond strength of porcelain and composite using different bonding agents.

Materials and methods

Sixty-three porcelain pellets were prepared and were divided into 9 groups. Three surface treatment and two bonding agents were evaluated. The surface treatment were: 1) sandblasting; 2) etching with 35% phosphoric acid; and 3) etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid. Applying bonding agents Scotch bond adhesive and clearfil liner bond 2V and combination of these treatments. Composite resin was condensed and light cured for 60 seconds on the porcelain specimens which were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours before mechanical testing.

Results

The bond strength were significantly different according to ANOVA F-test (F = 6.28, p < 0.01) and Duncan’s Multiple Range Test. Eight percent hydrofluoric acid showed higher bond strength when compared to 35% phosphoric acid etching and sandblasting by 50 micron aluminum oxide. Highest bond strength was observed with hydrofluoric acid + clearfil.

Conclusion

Etching with 8% hydrofluoric acid + clearfil liner bond showed higher bond strength when compared to hydrofluoric acid alone. This is indicative that effect of silane and etching can be use to improve mechanico chemical bonding. Among bonding agents used clearfil liner showed higher bond strength when compared to scotch bond adhesive.