不同牙面处理对隐形矫治附件粘接的影响
作者:
作者单位:

作者简介:

刘晓羽(1994.11-),女,河北沧州人,硕士研究生,主要从事口腔正畸学方面研究

通讯作者:

阮晓慧(1979.2-),女,四川绵阳人,硕士,主任医师,主要从事口腔全科医学及口腔正畸学方面研究

中图分类号:

R783.5

基金项目:

新疆维吾尔自治区自然科学基金资助项目(编号:2018D01C230)


Effects of Different Dental Surfaces on Adhesion of Invisible Orthodontic Accessories
Author:
Affiliation:

Fund Project:

  • 摘要
  • |
  • 图/表
  • |
  • 访问统计
  • |
  • 参考文献
  • |
  • 相似文献
  • |
  • 引证文献
  • |
  • 资源附件
  • |
  • 文章评论
    摘要:

    目的 比较三种不同方法处理牙面对隐形矫治器附件粘接强度的影响。方法 收集2022年3月-5月新 疆医科大学第二附属医院口腔正畸科的21例错颌畸形患者因正畸减数拔除的前磨牙共84颗,将其随机分为A 组、B组、C组、D组,各21颗。A组不作牙面处理为对照组,B组采用抛光杯处理牙面,C组采用矽离子处理 牙面,D组采用喷砂粉处理牙面。对处理后的牙面均进行酸蚀,每组随机选择1颗样本于扫描电镜下观察牙 面情况。将每组剩余样本再平分为1组、2组,各10颗,1组使用3 M Z350XT固体树脂制作附件粘接,2组使用 3 M Z350XT流动树脂制作附件粘接,测试各组剪切力强度并进行比较。结果 各组牙面处理后牙釉质结构存 在差异,其中A组酸蚀后的牙釉质表面粗糙,鱼鳞状釉质结构基本完整;B组酸蚀后的牙釉质表面粗糙程度 较A组增加,釉柱间釉质不规则结构增加;C组酸蚀后牙釉质表面呈现明显的筛孔状结构,釉柱间质溶解, 孔隙增大;D组釉质酸蚀后,表面较粗糙,釉质结构分布不均匀。B1、C1、D1组剪切强度均高于对照A1组, 差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);B2、C2、D2组剪切强度均高于对照A2组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。 结论 用三种方式处理牙面均可增加树脂附件在牙面的粘接强度;在使用固体树脂粘接附件时,矽离子处理 牙面为增加粘接强度的最优选择;在使用流动树脂粘接附件时,选择喷砂处理的粘接效果最佳。

    Abstract:

    Objective To compare the bond strength of clear aligner attachments treated with three different dental surfaces methods. Methods A total of 84 premolars extracted from 21 patients with malocclusion due to orthodontic extraction in the Department of Orthodontics, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University from March to May 2022 were collected and randomly divided into group A, group B, group C and group D, with 21 premolars in each group. Group A was the control group without tooth surface treatment, group B was treated with polishing cup, group C was treated with silicon ion, and group D was treated with sandblasting powder. After acid etching, one sample from each group was randomly selected to observe the tooth surface under scanning electron microscope. Each group of remaining samples was equally divided into group 1 and group 2, with 10 pills in each group. Group 1 was bonded with 3 M Z350XT solid resin, and group 2 was bonded with 3 M Z350XT flowable resin. The shear strength of each group was tested and compared. Results There were differences in enamel structure among all groups after dental surface treatment. Among them, the enamel surface of group A without dental surface treatment was rough and the fish-scale enamel structure was basically complete after acid etching. After the polishing cup treatment, the roughness of enamel surface in group B was higher than that in group A, and the irregular structure of enamel between enamel columns was increased. After the silicon-ion treatment, the enamel surface of group C showed obvious sieve structure, the enamel column interstitial dissolved, and the pores increased. The enamel of group D was rougher and unevenly distributed after acid etching. The shear strength of groups B1, C1 and D1 was higher than that of group A1, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The shear strength of groups B2, C2 and D2 was higher than that of group A2, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion All the three treatment methods can increase the bonding strength of the resin attachment. When using solid resin attachments, silicon ion treatment is the best choice to increase the bond strength. The adhesive effect of sandblasting is the best when using flowable resin to bond attachments.

    参考文献
    相似文献
    引证文献
引用本文

刘晓羽,宁思佳,张 蕾,等.不同牙面处理对隐形矫治附件粘接的影响[J].医学美学美容,2023,32(5):90-93.

复制
分享
文章指标
  • 点击次数:
  • 下载次数:
  • HTML阅读次数:
  • 引用次数:
历史
  • 收稿日期:
  • 最后修改日期:
  • 录用日期:
  • 在线发布日期: 2023-07-22
  • 出版日期: