正畸托槽不同粘结方法的粘结强度比较  

Comparison of the bond strengths of different orthodontic bond Methods

作　　者：刘浩[1,2] 王鹏来[1,2] 杨丽 王世兴 冯妍 

机构地区：[1]徐州医学院口腔医学院口腔系,江苏徐州221000 [2]徐州市口腔医院正畸科,江苏徐州221002

出　　处：《中国美容医学》2015年第4期51-55,共5页Chinese Journal of Aesthetic Medicine

基　　金：徐州市科技发展项目(XZZD1371)

摘　　要：目的:比较托槽间接粘结法同直接粘结法的托槽粘结强度差异。方法:收集96颗因正畸拔除的新鲜人类前磨牙,随机分为A、B和C三组,每组32颗。A组使用改良间接粘结法,B组选用Sondhi推荐的间接粘结法,C组采用直接粘结法。分别检测两组粘结剂残留和托槽的抗剪切强度。结果:3组粘结剂残留存在统计学差异(Z=19.35,P<0.05),C组残留率最多,进一步两两比较,A组比B组粘结剂残留较少,但差异不具有统计学意义(t=1.25,P>0.05);3组抗剪切强度存在统计学差异(F=7.493,P<0.05);进一步两两比较,A组(9.92±3.51)与B组(9.38±2.09)抗剪切强度无统计学差异(P>0.05),C组(12.41±4.09)抗剪切强度强于A和B组,且差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:改良间接粘结法与Sondhi法相比,粘结剂残留率较低,抗剪切强度较高,能够满足临床需要。Objective To compare the difference of brackets bond strength between indirect bonding method and direct bonding method. Methods Ninety-six extracted human premolars for orthodontic reason were collected and randomly divided into group A,B and C（n=32 in each group）. In group A,brackets were bonded to tooth by simply indirect bracket bonding techniques. In group B,brackets were bonded by the Sondhi method.In group C,we used the direct bracket bonding techniques.The adhesive residues and shear bond strength of brackets were detected. Results There was statistically significant in adhesive residues in three groups（Z =19.35,P 0.05）, and group C was the largest.The adhesive residues in group A was smaller than group B, but with no statistically significant（t=1.25,P0.05）. There was statistically significant in shear strength in three groups（F=7.493,P0.05）.The shear strength in group A（9.92±3.51） was no significantly difference compared with that in group B（9.38±2.09）（P0.05）. The shear strength of group C（12.41±4.09） was bigger than group A and B, and with statistically significant（P 0.05）. Conclusion Compared with Sondhi method, our modified indirect bonding is with lower adhesive residues, higher shear strength, which can apply in clinical use.

关 键 词：托槽 粘结 抗剪切强度 

分 类 号：R783.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]