Sarah M Naji, Mohammad H Mohammad, Enas T Enan, Marwa A Tawfik
{"title":"Different Wire Surface Treatments on Adhesion Efficacy of Orthodontic Fixed Retainer: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study.","authors":"Sarah M Naji, Mohammad H Mohammad, Enas T Enan, Marwa A Tawfik","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3726","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>This study assesses the impact of surface treatment with sandblasting and Z-primer on the adhesion efficacy of fixed lingual retainers.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Dead soft stainless steel wire 0.016 × 0.022-inch (<i>n</i> = 120) was treated by different techniques and classified into four groups equally (<i>n</i> = 30) according to surface treatment. Group I wire without treatment, group II wire treated with sandblasting, group III wire treated with Z-primer alone, and group IV wire treated with sandblasting with Z-primer. The stainless steel wire (<i>n</i> = 40) was bonded to 80 extracted premolars in pairs mounted in acrylic. Other stainless steel wires (<i>n</i> = 80) are embedded into acrylic blocks. All groups were divided into two subgroups according to thermocycling teeth samples were assessed by shear bond strength (SBS) A stereomicroscope was used to calculate the adhesive remnant index (ARI), while the acrylic block was by pull-out test. Finally, data were analyzed by IBM-SPSS (V 27, 2020). Mann-Whitney <i>U</i>-test; Kruskal-Wallis <i>H</i>-test and, two-way ANOVA were utilized to assess for SBS and pull-out.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Kruskal-Wallis <i>H</i>-test showed a non-significant difference in ARI between all groups, while in two-way mixed ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in SBS between group III (sandblasting/Z-primer) vs group I and group IV Z-primer (<i>p</i> = 0.028) and control (<i>p</i> = 0.016), and a significant difference between group II sandblasting vs both group I and group IV Z-primer (<i>p</i> = 0.024) and control (<i>p</i> = 0.014). The two-way mixed ANOVA tests showed a significant difference in pull-out between sandblasting/Z-primer vs Z-primer (<i>p</i> = 0.012).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Using of mixed surface treatment for fixed retainer as sandblasting with Z-primer is considered as the best method to increase adhesion efficacy between wire and composite and improve the quality of orthodontics fixation when compared with single treatment (sandblasting alone or Z prime). On the other hand, the sue of sandblasting alone for fixed retainer surface treatment is better than Z-primer alone but both treatments are better than fixed retainer without treatment.</p><p><strong>Clinical application: </strong>Developed and examined new and traditional techniques used to treat the surface of wire used as a retainer after orthodontics treatment to improve patients' treatment and life quality and decrease the chance of relapse. How to cite this article: Naji SM, Mohammad MH, Enan ET, et al. Different Wire Surface Treatments on Adhesion Efficacy of Orthodontic Fixed Retainer: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):677-683.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 7","pages":"677-683"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3726","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: This study assesses the impact of surface treatment with sandblasting and Z-primer on the adhesion efficacy of fixed lingual retainers.
Materials and methods: Dead soft stainless steel wire 0.016 × 0.022-inch (n = 120) was treated by different techniques and classified into four groups equally (n = 30) according to surface treatment. Group I wire without treatment, group II wire treated with sandblasting, group III wire treated with Z-primer alone, and group IV wire treated with sandblasting with Z-primer. The stainless steel wire (n = 40) was bonded to 80 extracted premolars in pairs mounted in acrylic. Other stainless steel wires (n = 80) are embedded into acrylic blocks. All groups were divided into two subgroups according to thermocycling teeth samples were assessed by shear bond strength (SBS) A stereomicroscope was used to calculate the adhesive remnant index (ARI), while the acrylic block was by pull-out test. Finally, data were analyzed by IBM-SPSS (V 27, 2020). Mann-Whitney U-test; Kruskal-Wallis H-test and, two-way ANOVA were utilized to assess for SBS and pull-out.
Results: Kruskal-Wallis H-test showed a non-significant difference in ARI between all groups, while in two-way mixed ANOVA demonstrated a significant difference in SBS between group III (sandblasting/Z-primer) vs group I and group IV Z-primer (p = 0.028) and control (p = 0.016), and a significant difference between group II sandblasting vs both group I and group IV Z-primer (p = 0.024) and control (p = 0.014). The two-way mixed ANOVA tests showed a significant difference in pull-out between sandblasting/Z-primer vs Z-primer (p = 0.012).
Conclusion: Using of mixed surface treatment for fixed retainer as sandblasting with Z-primer is considered as the best method to increase adhesion efficacy between wire and composite and improve the quality of orthodontics fixation when compared with single treatment (sandblasting alone or Z prime). On the other hand, the sue of sandblasting alone for fixed retainer surface treatment is better than Z-primer alone but both treatments are better than fixed retainer without treatment.
Clinical application: Developed and examined new and traditional techniques used to treat the surface of wire used as a retainer after orthodontics treatment to improve patients' treatment and life quality and decrease the chance of relapse. How to cite this article: Naji SM, Mohammad MH, Enan ET, et al. Different Wire Surface Treatments on Adhesion Efficacy of Orthodontic Fixed Retainer: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):677-683.
材料与方法:采用不同的技术处理 0.016 × 0.022 英寸的软不锈钢死丝(n = 120),并根据表面处理情况平均分为四组(n = 30)。第 I 组钢丝未经处理,第 II 组钢丝经喷砂处理,第 III 组钢丝仅用 Z 型胶粘剂处理,第 IV 组钢丝经喷砂处理并用 Z 型胶粘剂处理。将不锈钢丝(n = 40)粘接在 80 颗拔出的前臼齿上,成对安装在丙烯酸树脂中。其他不锈钢丝(n = 80)嵌入丙烯酸块中。根据热循环将所有组别分为两个亚组,牙齿样本通过剪切粘接强度(SBS)进行评估,使用体视显微镜计算粘接残留指数(ARI),而丙烯酸块则通过拉出试验进行评估。最后,使用 IBM-SPSS (V 27, 2020) 对数据进行分析。采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验、Kruskal-Wallis H 检验和双向方差分析来评估 SBS 和拔出:Kruskal-Wallis H 检验表明,各组之间的 ARI 差异不显著,而双向混合方差分析表明,第三组(喷砂/Z-填料)与第一组和第四组 Z-填料(p = 0.028)和对照组(p = 0.016)之间的 SBS 差异显著,第二组喷砂与第一组和第四组 Z-填料(p = 0.024)和对照组(p = 0.014)之间的 SBS 差异显著。双向混合方差分析测试表明,喷砂/Z-primer 与 Z-primer之间的拔出率差异显著(p = 0.012):结论:与单一处理方法(单独喷砂或 Z-填料)相比,使用喷砂和 Z-填料混合表面处理固定保持器被认为是提高钢丝和复合材料之间粘附效果以及改善正畸固定质量的最佳方法。另一方面,在固定保持器表面处理中,单独喷砂的效果优于单独使用 Z-底漆的效果,但两种处理方法的效果都优于不进行处理的固定保持器:临床应用:开发和研究用于矫治后保持器钢丝表面处理的新技术和传统技术,以提高患者的治疗和生活质量,减少复发机会。本文引用方式Naji SM, Mohammad MH, Enan ET, et al:体外研究。J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(7):677-683.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.