三种非金属托槽抗剪切强度比较  

Comparison of the shear bond strength of three nonmetal brackets

作　　者：房伯君[1] 杨亚囡[1] 

机构地区：[1]中国医科大学第二临床学院口腔科,沈阳110004

出　　处：《现代口腔医学杂志》2005年第5期512-513,共2页Journal of Modern Stomatology

摘　　要：目的比较京津釉质粘接剂粘接三种非金属托槽的抗剪切强度,评估托槽去除后牙面残留粘接剂指数(adhesiveremnantindexes,ARI),为临床合理选择非金属托槽提供指导。方法60颗人类前磨牙随机均分为三组,用京津釉质粘接剂分别粘接陶瓷托槽、有机玻璃托槽和聚碳酸酯托槽,测定并记录其抗剪切强度和托槽去除后牙面残留粘接剂指数。结果三种托槽的抗剪切强度和ARI记分情况均不全相同(P<0.05),组间比较发现陶瓷托槽组与另两组间差别显著(P<0.01),而有机玻璃组与聚碳酸酯组间无显著差别(P>0.05)。结论在应用京津釉质粘接剂粘接托槽时,陶瓷托槽的粘接强度足可以满足正畸临床矫治要求,而有机玻璃托槽和聚碳酸酯托槽的粘接强度较低以至不能满足正畸临床矫治要求,应谨慎使用。Objective To compare the shear bond strength of three nonmetal brackets and to evaluate the adhesive renmant indexes for the purpose of direct clinical application, Methods Sixty extracted human premolars were randomly and evenly divided into 3 groups. Ceramic bracket ,plastic bracket, and polycarbonate bracket were bonded to each groups with Jingjin enamel adhesive. The shear bond strength and adhesive renmant indexes were measured and recorded, Results There was a difference in the shear bond strength among the three groups （ P 〈 0.05）. The shear bond strength of the ceramic bracket group was higher than that of the other two groups （ P 〈 0.01 ） in which no significant difference was found between the two groups （ P 〉0.05）. Conclusion When using Jingjin enamel adhesive, the shear bond strength of the ceramic bracket is strong that might meet clinical applications. The plastic bracket and polycarbonate bracket could not meet the clinical uses.

关 键 词：非金属托槽 剪切粘接强度 正畸 

分 类 号：R783[医药卫生—口腔医学]