论文部分内容阅读
目的比较京津釉质粘合剂、玻璃离子粘接剂、树脂加强型粘接剂三种口腔正畸托粘接剂污染后的剪切强度。方法收集我院2013年1~4月因正畸原因拔出的前磨牙108颗,分别在唾液污染湿润、干燥条件下粘接正畸托槽,选用京津釉质粘合剂、玻璃离子粘接剂、树脂加强型粘接剂,比较分析三种粘接剂在唾液污染条件下的剪切强度及牙面残留粘接剂指数(ARI)。结果唾液污染干燥条件下三种粘接剂的剪切强度以及ARI间差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);唾液污染湿润条件下树脂加强型粘接剂的剪切强度明显高于京津釉质粘合剂、玻璃离子粘接剂,且ARI明显低于京津釉质粘合剂、玻璃离子粘接剂,组间差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论京津釉质粘合剂、玻璃离子粘接剂、树脂加强型粘接剂三种口腔正畸托粘接剂都能够满足临床正畸需求,但在唾液污染环境下树脂加强型粘接剂的剪切强度最佳,应作为首选。
Objective To compare the shear strength of three orthodontic orthodontic adhesives after Beijing-Tianjin enamel adhesive, glass ionomer adhesive and resin-reinforced adhesive. Methods 108 cases of premolar teeth extracted from orthodontics in our hospital from January to April 2013 were collected. Orthodontic brackets were respectively adhered to the saliva in wet and dry conditions. Glass-ceramic ion-bonding The shear strength and residual adhesive index (ARI) of three kinds of adhesives under saliva contamination were comparatively analyzed. Results There was no significant difference in the shear strength and ARI between the three adhesives under the condition of saliva contamination and drying (P> 0.05). The shear strength of the resin-reinforced adhesives under the saliva wet condition was significantly higher than that of the Beijing- Enamel adhesive, glass ionomer adhesive, and ARI was significantly lower than the Beijing-Tianjin enamel adhesive, glass ionomer adhesive, between the two groups were statistically significant (P <0.05). Conclusions The three orthodontic orthodontic adhesives, Beijing-Tianjin enamel adhesive, glass ionomer adhesive and resin-reinforced adhesive, can meet the needs of clinical orthodontic treatment. However, in the saliva contaminated environment, the resin-reinforced adhesive Shear strength is the best, should be preferred.