International orthodontics · 2020
Comparison of shear bond strength and ARI of four different adhesive systems used to bond molar tubes: An in vitro study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Griffin Jim, Ruddy Mark, Mavreas Dimitris, Nace Susan, Vande Vannet Bart, Stanton Kenneth T
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the shear bond strength and ARI score of one traditional etch-and-rinse adhesive system serving as control, with those of two other all-in-one adhesives but with enamel acid etching preceding their application, and of one new 8th generation all-in-one bonding agent combined with a traditional adhesive used to bond stainless steel buccal tubes to molar teeth.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four groups of teeth were formulated according to the adhesive system used to bond the tubes on the molars. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, UK). After debonding, each enamel surface was imaged using Inspex HD l080p Vesa camera (Ash Technologies Ltd., Ireland) to determine the ARI score.
RESULTS: The mean SBSs in MPa for the four groups were respectively: A: 9.640 (±3.69), B: 10.261 (±3.03), C: 9.689 (±2.48), D: 8.412 (±3.02). No statistically significant differences were neither found through one-way ANOVA to exist between the group means (P: 0.715), nor for the ARI score frequence through Chi2 (P: 0.534). Maxcem Elite showed four and G-Premio Bond zero instances of enamel fracture.
CONCLUSIONS: 1. SBSs of all adhesives and ARI score distributions did not present any significant differences when used to bond stainless steel molar tubes. 2. All adhesives presented with acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use. 3. Maxcem Elite under the tested conditions presented the greatest and G-Premio the least number of enamel fractures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Four groups of teeth were formulated according to the adhesive system used to bond the tubes on the molars. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine (Hounsfield, UK). After debonding, each enamel surface was imaged using Inspex HD l080p Vesa camera (Ash Technologies Ltd., Ireland) to determine the ARI score.
RESULTS: The mean SBSs in MPa for the four groups were respectively: A: 9.640 (±3.69), B: 10.261 (±3.03), C: 9.689 (±2.48), D: 8.412 (±3.02). No statistically significant differences were neither found through one-way ANOVA to exist between the group means (P: 0.715), nor for the ARI score frequence through Chi2 (P: 0.534). Maxcem Elite showed four and G-Premio Bond zero instances of enamel fracture.
CONCLUSIONS: 1. SBSs of all adhesives and ARI score distributions did not present any significant differences when used to bond stainless steel molar tubes. 2. All adhesives presented with acceptable shear bond strengths for clinical use. 3. Maxcem Elite under the tested conditions presented the greatest and G-Premio the least number of enamel fractures.