6种正畸粘结剂粘结强度的比较研究  

Study on shear bond strength of six orthodontic bonding agents

作　　者：郑闱颖[1] 林军[2] 叶衡峰[1] 周峰[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江省嘉兴市第二医院口腔科,浙江嘉兴314000 [2]浙江大学附属第一医院口腔科,浙江杭州310006

出　　处：《口腔医学》2014年第6期447-449,共3页Stomatology

摘　　要：目的比较使用6种不同粘结剂在模拟口腔环境的体外实验中,抗剪切力的大小及托槽表面粘结接剂残余量。方法选择健康前磨牙60颗,随机分为6组,分别使用6种正畸托槽粘结剂:4款光固化型树脂粘结剂,1款光固化型玻璃离子粘结剂和1款化学固化牙釉质粘合树脂。6种粘结剂严格按说明操作粘结托槽,置于37℃的人工唾液中24 h后,用万能测力仪以1 mm/min的速度,记录托槽脱落的剪切力值,算出粘结剂的抗剪切力强度,结果用SPSS 17.0统计软件进行分析。在10倍放大镜下观察托槽的底板上残留粘结剂量,并进行ARI评分,将结果进行Kruskall-wallis H检验。结果 Transbond XT光固化型树脂粘结剂组,Medicept光固化型树脂粘结剂组以及西湖巴尔公司产的光固化型树脂粘结剂组和非调拌型化学固化牙釉质粘合树脂组之间粘结强度无显著性差异(P>0.05);虽然GC光固化型玻璃离子粘结剂组和Prime-Dent光固化型树脂粘结剂组之间粘结强度亦无显著性差异(P>0.05),但与前4组粘结剂之存在显著性差异(P<0.05),粘结强度相对较小;ARI评分结果进行Kruskall-wallis H检验显示各组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论 6种正畸粘结剂的粘结强度存在差异,但能够满足正畸临床工作需要。Objective To compare the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index of six orthodonticbonding agents in simu- lated oral environment in vitro. Methods Sixty healthy premolars were randomly divided into 6 groups. Then the brackets were bonded with six orthodontic bonding agents （A：3M Unitek Transbond XT; B：Xihubion no-mix orthodontic direct bonding system;C：Xihubiom no-mix light cure orthodontic bonding system ; D ： GC Fuji ORTHO LC ; E ： Medieept light cure orthodontic adhesive bonding system ; F ： Prime-Dent light cure orthodontic adhesive bonding system） strictly according to instructions. After 24 hours＇ artificial saliva bath at 37 ℃ , the shear strength of each group was tested with an universal dynamometer at 1 mm/min. The shear force values at which brackets fell off were recorded. The shear strength were worked out. SPSS 17.0 software was used to analyse the results. The adhesive remain index （ARI scoring） was recorded under a magnifier by 10 times. The results were dealt with by Kruskall-wallis H test. Results There was no significant differencein the bonding strength among group A, B, C, E （P 〉 0.05 ）. Though the bonding strength of D, F group was not significantly different （ P 〉 0.05 ） ,it was significantly less than A, B, C, E groups （ P 〈 0.05 ）. ARI scores after Kruskall-wallis H test showed no significant differenceamong the six groups （ P 〉 0.05）. Conclusions Although there are significant differences on the bonding strength ofthe six orthodontic bonding agents,all can be used in the orthodontic treatment.

关 键 词：正畸 粘结剂 粘结强度 ARI评分 

分 类 号：R783.1[医药卫生—口腔医学]