光固化和化学固化树脂粘接剂剪切强度的对比研究

目的：对光固化和化学固化树脂粘接剂的剪切强度进行对比研究。方法：收集双尖牙20颗，随机分为两组（10颗／组），组用化学固化树脂粘接剂（津京釉质粒接剂），B组用固化树脂粘接剂（TransbondXT,3MUnitek)，把托槽粘接在牙面上，标本全部放置在37℃的恒温水浴中浸没24h，然后对粘接后的托槽／牙釉质界面剪切强度进行测试，以及对托槽脱落后牙面上粘接剂残留进行评估。结果：两种粘接剂组间的剪切强度和托槽脱落后残留粘接剂ARI计分均无显著性差异（P＞0．05）。结论，光固化和化学固化树脂粘接剂均具有较强的粘接强度，但光固化树脂粘接为托槽的定位和粘接提供供充足的时间，推荐使用。

Comparison of the Shear Bond Strength of Light-cured and Chemically-cured Resin Adhesive

Objective　To compare the shear bond strength of light-cured and chemically-cured resin adhesive.　Methods　Twenty recently extracted human premolars were randomly divided into two groups of 10 each.: Group A, using the chemically-cured resin adhesive (Jing Jinenamel adhesive) and Group B, using the light-cured resin adhesive (Transbond XT,3M Unitek). The brackets were bonded to prepared enamel surfaces and the samples were placed in a water bath at 37℃ for 24 hours, then measured the shear bond strength and assessed the remaining adhesive after debonded.　Results　The shear bond strength and assessing the remaining adhesive after debonded both had no statistical significanct difference between two adhesives.　Conclusion　The light-cured and the chemically-cured resin adhesive both have strong bond strength, but the light-cured resin adhesive has the advantage to offer more sufficient time for positioning and bonding the brackets, so it is recommended for using.