不同粘接剂去除方式对釉质微观结构及托槽抗剪切粘接强度的影响

doi:10.13591/j.cnki.kqyx.2022.09.004

Abstract

Abstract: Objective To compare the effects of five different removal methods of residual adhesive on enamel and brackets′ shear bond strength(SBS). Methods Sixty-six isolated premolars were randomly divided into 6 groups. Group A:blank group; Group B:diamondbur; Group C:green sandstone; Group D:slow tungsten carbide bur; Group E:slow tungsten carbide bur +tooth polishing cup; Group F:slow tungsten carbide bur + silicon particle. The same number of adhesive samples in each group were ground by the methodabove, and the operation time was recorded. The enamel surface was qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and surface roughness instrument. After bonding metal brackets, the SBS of brackets in each group was measured by universal mechanical tester, and the adhesive residual index (ARI) was analyzed. Results The removal efficiency of group B and C was higher, and that of group E was the lowest. SEM showed that the enamel morphology of group F was closest to group A. The roughness of group F was the lowest ((0.48±0.13)μm), which had no statistical difference with group A (P＞0.05). The SBS of group D was the highest ((16.61±1.99)MPa), which was statistically higher than group A (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in ARI index among all groups after bracket removal (P＞0.05). Conclusion The removal efficiency of diamondburs and green sandstone is high, but they have great damage to enamel; slow tungsten carbide bur combined with silicon particle has the lowest damage to enamel, and the removal efficiency is acceptable. The SBS of the bracket treated with slow tungsten carbide bur is the highest.

Key words: adhesive removal method, tooth surface roughness, shear bond strength

CLC Number:

R783.5

LIU Guangjun, MA Jinjin, TAO Kejin, JIANG Jing, FENG Jianying. Effects of different adhesive removal methods on enamel microstructure and shear bond strength of brackets[J]. Stomatology, 2022, 42(9): 785-789.

References

[1] Melvin EA, Yu QZ, Xu XM, et al. A comparison of traditional orthodontic polishing systems with composite polishing systems following orthodontic debonding[J]. Saudi Dent J, 2021, 33(8):877-883.
[2] 李爽, 胡敏. 关于正畸固定矫治中牙釉质脱矿的研究进展[J]. 口腔医学研究, 2021, 37(8):685-688.
[3] Kechagia A, Zinelis S, Pandis N, et al. The effect of orthodontic adhesive and bracket-base design in adhesive remnant index on enamel[J].J World Fed Orthod, 2015, 4(1):18-22.
[4] Dilip S, Srinivas S, Mohammed Noufal MN, et al. Comparison of surface roughness of enamel and shear bond strength, between conventional acid etching and erbium, chromium-doped:Yttrium scandium-gallium-garnet laser etching-An in vitro study[J]. Dent Res J (Isfahan), 2018, 15(4):248-255.
[5] Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Fraticelli D, et al. Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing[J]. J Orthod Sci, 2015, 4(4):123-127.
[6] Grazioli G, Hardan L, Bourgi R, et al. Residual adhesive removal methods for rebonding of debonded orthodontic metal brackets:Systematic review and meta-analysis[J]. Materials (Basel), 2021, 14(20):6120.
[7] Fjeld M, Øgaard B. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2006, 130(5):575-581.
[8] Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L. Microscopic evaluation of enamelafter debonding:Clinical application[J]. Am J Orthod, 1977, 71(6):651-665.
[9] Koprowski R, Machoy M, Woźniak K, et al. Automatic method of analysis of OCT images in the assessment of the tooth enamel surface after orthodontic treatment with fixed braces[J]. Biomed Eng Online, 2014, 13:48.
[10] Soares Tenório KC, Neupmann Feres MF, Tanaka CJ, et al. In vitro evaluation of enamel surface roughness and morphology after orthodontic debonding:Traditional cleanup systems versus polymer bur[J]. Int Orthod, 2020, 18(3):546-554.
[11] Alessandri Bonetti G, Zanarini M, Incerti Parenti S, et al. Evaluation of enamel surfaces after bracket debonding:An in-vivo study with scanning electron microscopy[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2011, 140(5):696-702.
[12] Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel-current knowledge and future perspectives-a systematic review[J]. Med Sci Monit, 2014, 20:1991-2001.
[13] Erdur EA,Akin M, Cime L, et al. Evaluation of enamel surface roughness after various finishing techniques for debonding of orthodontic brackets[J]. Turk J Orthod, 2016, 29(1):1-5.
[14] Vidor MM, Felix RP, Marchioro EM, et al. Enamel surface evaluation after bracket debonding and different resin removal methods[J]. Dental Press J Orthod, 2015, 20(2):61-67.
[15] 肖云鹤, 原工杰, 王妍,等. 正畸托槽及牙面残余粘接剂的去除方法研究进展[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(3):185-187.
[16] 钮晔, 安贝尔, 敬怡, 等. 5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2019, 28(2):136-140.
[17] Pinzan-Vercelino CRM, Souza Costa AC, Gurgel JA, et al. Comparison of enamel surface roughness and color alteration after bracket debonding and polishing with 2 systems:A split-mouth clinical trial[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2021, 160(5):686-694.
[18] Caixeta RV, Berger SB, Lopes MB, et al. Evaluation of enamel roughness after the removal of brackets bonded with different materials:in vivo study[J]. Braz Dent J, 2021, 32(5):34-40.
[19] Pinho M, Manso MC, Almeida RF, et al. Bond strength of metallic or ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel, acrylic, or porcelain surfaces[J]. Materials (Basel), 2020, 13(22):5197.
[20] 操亚波, 傅露, 孙旭容, 等. 不同处理方法对脱落托槽再粘接抗剪切强度的影响[J]. 口腔医学, 2018, 38(3):230-233.
[21] Kunjappan S, Kumaar V, Prithiviraj, et al. The effect of bleaching of teeth on the bond strength of brackets:An in vitro study[J]. J Pharm Bioallied Sci, 2013, 5(Suppl 1):S17-20.
[22] Loretto SC, Braz R, Lyra AM, et al. Influence of photopolymerization light source on enamel shear bond strength after bleaching[J]. Braz Dent J, 2004, 15(2):133-137.
[23] Pastrav M, Chisnoiu AM, Pastrav O, et al. Surface characteristics, fluoride release and bond strength evaluation of four orthodontic adhesives[J]. Materials (Basel), 2021, 14(13):3578.

Effects of different adhesive removal methods on enamel microstructure and shear bond strength of brackets

PDF (PC)

Knowledge

Abstract

Cite this article

share this article

References

Related Articles 10

Recommended Articles

Metrics

Comments

[1]	. Effect of the application sequence of casein phosphopetide-amorphic calcium phosphat pretreatment on bond strength of deciduous dentin [J]. , 2020, 40(1): 39-42.
[2]	. Influence of deproteinization of sodium hypochlorite on shear bond strength of enamel：a meta-analysis [J]. , 2018, 38(9): 819-823.
[3]	. Study on the adhesive properties and antibacterial properties of DMAE-CB and NACP modified dentin adhesives [J]. , 2018, 38(3): 227-229.
[4]	Ya-Bo CAO Lu FU Xu-Rong SUN. Influence of shear bond strength of rebonded metal brackets treated with three different methods [J]. , 2018, 38(3): 230-233.
[5]	. Effect of various conditions of sandblasting on shear bond strength between zirconia and indirect composite resin [J]. , 2016, 36(9): 801-805.
[6]	. Effect of sandblasting on the shear bond strength and durability of three resin cements bonded to titanium [J]. , 2016, 36(5): 407-410.
[7]	. The effect of zinc oxide eugenol cement on the shear bond strength of three permanent cements [J]. , 2016, 36(3): 206-209.
[8]	. The vitro study of the influence of different silane coupling agents and adhesive materials on shear bond strength of metal brackets to porcelain surface [J]. , 2016, 36(2): 116-119.
[9]	. Effect of Er:YAG laser irradiation on dentin bonding strength [J]. , 2016, 36(11): 989-992.
[10]	. Effects of different energies of Er: YAG laser pretreatment on the shear bond strength of self-adhesive resin cement [J]. , 2014, 34(12): 931-935.