口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2024, Vol. 40 ›› Issue (8): 735-740.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2024.08.013

• 口腔正畸学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

个性化机加工底板托槽的抗剪切强度研究

杨瑞婷1, 张洁1, 许雅芬1*, 姜英奇2, 戴玺伟1, 周迎1, 张琦1   

  1. 1.湖南中医药大学口腔医(学)院 湖南 长沙 410218;
    2.有研医疗器械(北京)有限公司 北京 102200
  • 收稿日期:2024-01-24 出版日期:2024-08-28 发布日期:2024-08-22
  • 通讯作者: *许雅芬,E-mail:1534674252@qq.com
  • 作者简介:杨瑞婷(1997~ ),女,长沙人,硕士,住院医师,研究方向:口腔正畸学。
  • 基金资助:
    长沙市卫生健康委员会2023年度科研计划项目(编号:KJ-A2023014);长沙市自然基金项目(编号:kq2208484);长沙市2022年度指导性科技计划项目(编号:kzd22070);湖南中医药大学院校联合基金项目(编号:2022XYLH136、2022XYLH128);湖南中医药大学校级研究生创新课题(编号:2022CX205)

Shear Bond Strength of Personalized Machined Brackets

YANG Ruiting1, ZHANG Jie1, XU Yafen1*, JIANG Yingqi2, DAI Xiwei1, ZHOU Yin1, ZHANG Qi1   

  1. 1. Department of Orthodontics, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Hunan University of Chinese Medicine, Changsha 410005, China;
    2. GRIMED Medical (Beijing) Limited Company, Beijing 102200, China
  • Received:2024-01-24 Online:2024-08-28 Published:2024-08-22

PDF (PC)

31

摘要： 目的: 采用两种临床常用粘接剂,对个性化机加工底板托槽、新型网底托槽、双向倒钩底板托槽和传统网底托槽的抗剪切强度(shear bond strength,SBS)进行比较研究,为临床个性化机加工托槽的粘接提供参考。方法: 收集48颗新鲜人类前磨牙,随机分为8组。A、B组选用个性化机加工底板托槽,C、D组选用新型网底托槽,E、F组选用双向倒钩底板托槽,G、H组选用传统网底托槽;A、C、E、G组使用化学固化粘接剂,B、D、F、H组使用光固化粘接剂。在粘接实验前,在所有托槽中,每种托槽随机选1颗,对其底板在放大40倍、100倍的扫描电镜下进行观察并拍照。使用万能材料实验机,对每组托槽进行SBS的测定,并进行粘接剂残留量(adhesive remnant index,ARI)计分。结果: 使用化学固化粘接剂时,其他3种托槽相比,双向倒钩底板托槽粘接强度较低,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。使用光固化粘接剂时,双向倒钩底板托槽粘接强度最低,新型网底托槽较低,传统网底托槽和个性化机加工底板托槽粘接强度最高,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),传统网底托槽和个性化机加工底板托槽之间粘接强度无明显差异(P>0.05)。各组ARI计分差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),进一步比较可得:H组ARI计分最小,且H组与A组和E组的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论: 个性化机加工底板托槽使用光固化粘接剂或使用化学固化粘接剂对其粘接强度无明显影响,粘接强度均能满足正畸临床粘接的要求。H组脱粘接断裂部位相对更接近牙釉质,其余各组牙釉质在脱粘接过程中损伤的风险较小。

关键词: 个性化机加工托槽, 托槽底板, 粘接剂, 粘接强度

Abstract: Objective: To compare the bonding strength of four types of metal bottom plate brackets. Methods: Forty-eight extracted premolars were randomly assigned to eight main groups, with six teeth in each group. Personalized machined bottom bracket was adopted in group A and B, new net bottom bracket was adopted in group C and D, two-way barb bottom bracket was adopted in group E and F, and traditional net bottom bracket was adopted in group G and H. Among them, chemically cured resin adhesive was adopted for bonding brackets in group A, C, E, and G, light-cured resin adhesive was adopted for bonding brackets in group B, D, F, and H. Before the bonding experiment, the bottom plate was observed with the scanning electron microscope. The shear strength of each bracket was measured with a universal material testing machine, and the adhesive residue on each bracket was counted. Results: When using chemically cured resin adhesive, the bonding strength of the brackets on the two-way barb bottom bracket was lower than that of other three kinds of brackets (P<0.05). When using light-cured resin adhesive, compared with other three kinds of brackets, the two-way barb bottom bracket had the lowest bonding strength, the new net bottom bracket had the lowest bonding strength, the traditional net bottom bracket and the personalized machined bottom bracket had the highest bonding strength, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in bonding strength between the traditional net bottom bracket and the personalized machined base bracket (P>0.05). There were significant differences in ARI scores among all groups (P<0.05). ARI score in group H was the smallest, and the difference between group H, group A, and group E was statistically significant (P<0.05). Conclusion: The use of chemically cured resin adhesive or light-cured resin adhesive has no obvious effect on personalized machined bottom brackets bonding strength, and the bonding strength can meet the requirements of orthodontic clinical bonding. The fracture site of group H was relatively closer to the enamel, and the risk of enamel damage in the other groups was less during the process of debonding.

Key words: personalized machined bracket, bracket bases, adhesives, bond strength