3M自酸蚀黏结剂与GC光固化正畸黏结剂黏结颊面管性能比较研究  

The performance comparison of 3M self-etching adhesive and GC adhesive in bonding buccal tube.

作　　者：杜晓岩[1] 尹艳春[1] 李德超[1] 侯景秋[2] 彭惠[2] 

机构地区：[1]佳木斯大学口腔医学院,黑龙江佳木斯154004 [2]大庆油田总医院口腔正畸科,黑龙江大庆163001

出　　处：《中国实用口腔科杂志》2010年第3期155-157,共3页Chinese Journal of Practical Stomatology

摘　　要：目的比较3M自酸蚀封闭剂+3M光固化黏结剂与GC光固化正畸黏结剂在唾液污染条件下黏结颊面管的性能。方法收集2009年7—9月在大庆油田总医院口腔外科因牙周病拔除的新鲜下颌第一恒磨牙40颗,随机分为3M组和GC组,每组20颗。分别用3M自酸蚀封闭剂+3M光固化黏结剂和GC光固化正畸黏结剂黏结颊面管,测试其抗剪切强度、抗拉伸强度及黏结剂残留指数。结果两种黏结剂的抗剪切强度及抗拉伸强度差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),GC光固化正畸黏结剂黏结强度大于3M自酸蚀黏结剂;在剪切力和拉伸力作用下,GC光固化正畸黏结剂的黏结剂残留指数(ARI)小于3M自酸蚀黏结剂,二者差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论GC光固化正畸黏结剂性能较佳,对釉质损伤小,适合用于隔湿效果差的磨牙黏结颊面管。Objective To compare the performance of 3M self-etching primer＋3M light-cured adhesive and GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive in bonding buccal tube in saliva-contaminated conditions.Methods A total of 40 mandibular first permanent molars were collected from July 2009 to September 2009 in Dental Surgery of Daqing Oil Field General Hospital and were randomly divided into 2 groups.Buccal tubes were bonded with 3M self-etching primer ＋3M light-cured adhesive and GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive respectively.The anti-shear strength,anti-tensile strength and adhesive remnant index were tested.Results The anti-shear strength and anti-tensile strength of two kinds of adhesive were significantly different （P 0.05）;the bond strength of GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive was greater than the 3M self-etching adhesive;the adhesive remnant index of two kinds of adhesive were also of significant difference （P 0.05）;the ARI count of GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive was less than 3M self-etching adhesive.Conclusion The performance of GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive is better with less damage to the enamel,and is suitable for the molar in bonding buccal tube in the saliva polluted environment.

关 键 词：颊面管 自酸蚀黏结剂 树脂加强型玻璃离子 黏结强度 黏结剂残留指数 

分 类 号：R78[医药卫生—口腔医学]