论文部分内容阅读
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 blocker + 3M light-curing adhesive and GC light-curing orthodontic adhesive in bonding buccal tubes under saliva contamination. Methods 40 fresh mandibular first permanent molars extracted from oral surgery in Daqing Oilfield General Hospital from July to September 2009 due to periodontal disease were collected and randomly divided into 3M group and GC group with 20 in each group. The anti-shear strength, tensile strength and adhesive residue index of the buccal tube were respectively bonded with 3M self-etching capping agent + 3M light curing adhesive and GC light-curing orthodontic adhesive. Results The shear bond strength and tensile strength of the two adhesives were significantly different (P <0.05). The bond strength of GC photocured orthodontic adhesive was greater than that of 3M self-etching adhesive. The residual adhesive index (ARI) of GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive was less than that of 3M self-adhesive adhesive under the stretching force, the difference was statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusion GC light-cured orthodontic adhesive has better performance and less damage to enamel. It is suitable for molars bonding buccal tube with poor wet-out effect.