摘要
目的:采用临床常用的2种化学固化型粘接剂,对网底和激光底面托槽粘接强度进行比较研究。方法:收集80颗新鲜人类前磨牙随机分为8组。A、B组选用京津釉质粘结剂,C、D组选用Unitek自凝粘接剂;A、C组采用网底托槽,B、D组采用激光底面托槽。分别测定A1、B1、C1、D1组的抗剪切强度和A2、B2、C2、D2组的抗张强度,统计每个托槽上的粘接剂残留量。结果:网底托槽的抗剪切强度略大于激光底面托槽,有统计学意义(P<0.05);2种托槽的抗张强度、2种粘接剂的粘结强度、以及粘接剂残留量积分的差别均无统计学意义。结论:2种粘接剂的粘结强度及2种托槽的粘结强度均差别不大,都能很好的满足临床粘结要求,但在使用激光底面托槽时应尽量避免使用剪切力。
Objective：To compare different base designs and adhesives on the strength of bond of metallic orthodontic brackets.Methods：Eighty extracted human premolars were randomly and evenly divided into eight groups.Group A,B were bonded with Jingjin self-cured composite resin,group C,D with Unitek self-cured composite resin,and group A,C with shading bottle brackets,group B,D with laser base brackets.The bracket＇s shearing strength（SBS）was tested in group A1,B1,C1,D1,the tensile bond strength（TBS）was tested in group A2,B2,C2,D2.The adhesive remnant index（ARI）of adhesive with each bracket was recorded.Results：The SBS of shading bottle brackets were stronger than the laser base brackets（P0.05）.There were no difference in the TBS of two type of brackets,the two type of adhesive in the bond strength,and the ARI scores.Conclusion：There are no obvious difference between two types of bonding materials and two type of brackets in the bond strength.Both adhesivese and two brackets meet the clinical adhesive requirement.It is advised to aviod using shear force for laser base brackets.
出处
《口腔医学研究》
CAS
CSCD
2012年第12期1231-1233,1238,共4页
Journal of Oral Science Research
关键词
托槽
粘结剂
粘结强度
Orthodontic brackets Adhesive Tensile strength
