论文部分内容阅读
目的:对自制美学涂层弓丝表面粗糙度进行测试,并与传统不锈钢弓丝进行比较,在扫描电镜下观察弓丝的表面形貌。方法:分别测定经4种托槽(带金属槽沟的陶瓷托槽,普通托槽,陶瓷托槽,树脂托槽)摩擦过的及未经摩擦的0.018英寸的美学涂层不锈钢圆丝和0.018英寸的不锈钢圆丝的表面粗糙度,并在扫描电镜下观察弓丝的形貌特征。结果:未经摩擦过的涂层与未涂层弓丝间的表面粗糙度比较,无统计学意义;经托槽摩擦过的涂层与未涂层弓丝间的表面粗糙度比较,有统计学意义,且与不同托槽摩擦后弓丝表面粗糙度值不同,其中,与陶瓷托槽摩擦后的弓丝表面粗糙度和与带金属槽沟的陶瓷托槽,普通托槽及未摩擦的弓丝表面粗糙度存在统计学差异。结论:美学涂层弓丝符合口腔正畸临床使用要求。
OBJECTIVE: To test the surface roughness of self-made aesthetics coating archwire and to compare with the traditional stainless steel archwire to observe the surface morphology of archwire under scanning electron microscope. METHODS: A 0.018-inch aesthetically-coated stainless steel filament frictionally and non-rubbed with 4 brackets (ceramic brackets with metal grooves, plain brackets, ceramic brackets, resin brackets) and 0.018 Inch stainless steel round wire surface roughness, and under the scanning electron microscope to observe the topography of the arch wire. Results: There was no significant difference in the surface roughness between the unabraded and uncoated archwire. The surface roughness of the frictional coated and uncoated archwire was statistically Which is different from that of the arch wire after friction with different brackets. Among them, the surface roughness of the arch wire after friction with the ceramic bracket and the difference between the ceramic brackets with the metal slot and the ordinary brackets and the un-rubbed There is a statistical difference in the surface roughness of archwire. Conclusion: Aesthetic coating arch wire meets the orthodontic clinical requirements.