...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research >Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study
【24h】

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study

机译：不同基础设计的陶瓷支架的剪切粘结强度：体外比较研究

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Introduction: Knowledge about the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets with different base design is essential as it affects bond strength to enamel.Aim: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effect of base designs of different ceramic brackets on SBS, and to determine the fracture site after debonding.Materials and Methods: Four groups of ceramic brackets and one group of metal brackets with different base designs were used. Adhesive precoated base of Clarity Advanced (APC Flash-free) (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), microcrystalline base of Clarity Advanced (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), polymer mesh base of InVu (TP Orthodontics, Inc., La Porte, IN, United States), patented bead ball base of Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, California), and a mechanical mesh base of Gemini Metal bracket (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California). Ten brackets of each type were bonded to 50 maxillary premolars with Transbond XT (Unitek/3M). Samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine (Model 3382; Instron Corp., Canton, Massachusetts, USA) at a cross head speed of 1mm/minute with the help of a chisel. The debonded interface was recorded and analyzed to determine the predominant bond failure site under an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope) at 10X magnification. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare SBS. Tukey?s significant differences tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were compared by chi-square test.Results: Mean SBS of microcrystalline base (27.26±1.73), was the highest followed by bead ball base (23.45±5.09), adhesive precoated base (20.13±5.20), polymer mesh base (17.54±1.91), and mechanical mesh base (17.50±2.41) the least. Comparing the frequency (%) of ARI Score among the groups, chi-square test showed significantly different ARI scores among the groups (?2 = 34.07, p<0.001).Conclusion: Different base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence SBS to enamel and all were clinically acceptable.
机译：简介：了解具有不同基础设计的陶瓷托架的剪切粘结强度（SBS）至关重要，因为它会影响与瓷釉的粘结强度。目的：本研究的目的是评估和比较不同陶瓷托架的基础设计的效果材料和方法：使用四组陶瓷托座和一组金属托座，它们具有不同的基础设计。 Clarity Advanced（无APC闪存）（Unitek / 3M，加利福尼亚州蒙罗维亚）的胶粘剂预涂基底，Clarity Advanced（Unitek / 3M，加利福尼亚州蒙罗维亚）的微晶基底，InVu的聚合物网状基底（TP Orthodontics，Inc.，La）美国印第安那州的Porte），Inspire Ice（美国加利福尼亚州Glendora的Ormco）获得专利的珠子球底座以及Gemini Metal支架的机械网眼底座（加利福尼亚州蒙罗维亚的Unitek / 3M）。用Transbond XT（Unitek / 3M）将每种类型的十个托槽粘结到50个上颌前磨牙上。将样品在室温下在蒸馏水中保存24小时，然后在万能测试机（型号3382; Instron Corp.，美国马萨诸塞州，美国）上以剪切模式进行测试，并借助1mm / min的十字头速度凿子。记录并分析剥离的界面，以便在光学显微镜（立体显微镜）下以10倍的放大倍数确定主要的粘合失效部位。方差分析的一种方法（ANOVA）用于比较SBS。 Tukey的显着性差异测试用于事后比较。卡方检验比较了残胶指数（ARI）得分。结果：微晶基质的平均SBS（27.26±1.73）最高，其次是珠粒基质（23.45±5.09），预涂粘合剂的基质（20.13±5.20） ），聚合物网眼基底（17.54±1.91）和机械网眼基底（17.50±2.41）最少。比较各组之间ARI得分的频率（％），卡方检验显示各组之间ARI得分存在显着差异（？2 = 34.07，p <0.001）。结论：不同的金属和陶瓷支架基础设计会影响SBS。搪瓷，并且在临床上都可以接受。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号