{"title":"无闪光和传统陶瓷支架微泄漏评价:微计算机断层扫描研究。","authors":"Gökay Üstdal, Eyüp Burak Küçük","doi":"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2024.21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microleakage under the conventional and flash-free ceramic brackets bonded with different agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into five groups. According to the groups, adhesive coated and conventional bracket systems were bonded to the tooth surfaces with the specified adhesive agents. To simulate a six-month oral environment, all teeth were subjected to a thermal cycle procedure. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to view and measure the microleakage. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the parameters and Mann-Whitney U test was used for the determination of the group that caused the difference. For intragroup comparisons Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Microleakage volume (mm<sup>3</sup>) and microleakage percentage (%) measured in Blugloo™ group was found significantly lower (p<0.05) then other groups. There was no significant difference in microleakage volume (mm<sup>3</sup>) and percentage (%) in comparison of gingival and occlusal regions (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets were not shown a significant difference compared to their conventional equivalent for microleakage volume. The brackets bonded with Blugloo™ adhesive were showed significant less microleakage than the other groups.</p>","PeriodicalId":37013,"journal":{"name":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","volume":"37 4","pages":"242-248"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705194/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluation of Microleakage in Flash-Free and Conventional Ceramic Brackets: A Microcomputed Tomography Study.\",\"authors\":\"Gökay Üstdal, Eyüp Burak Küçük\",\"doi\":\"10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2024.21\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microleakage under the conventional and flash-free ceramic brackets bonded with different agents.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into five groups. According to the groups, adhesive coated and conventional bracket systems were bonded to the tooth surfaces with the specified adhesive agents. To simulate a six-month oral environment, all teeth were subjected to a thermal cycle procedure. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to view and measure the microleakage. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the parameters and Mann-Whitney U test was used for the determination of the group that caused the difference. For intragroup comparisons Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Microleakage volume (mm<sup>3</sup>) and microleakage percentage (%) measured in Blugloo™ group was found significantly lower (p<0.05) then other groups. There was no significant difference in microleakage volume (mm<sup>3</sup>) and percentage (%) in comparison of gingival and occlusal regions (p>0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets were not shown a significant difference compared to their conventional equivalent for microleakage volume. The brackets bonded with Blugloo™ adhesive were showed significant less microleakage than the other groups.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37013,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"volume\":\"37 4\",\"pages\":\"242-248\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11705194/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2024.21\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Turkish Journal of Orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2024.2024.21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
研究目的本研究的目的是评估和比较使用不同药剂粘结的传统陶瓷托槽和无闪光陶瓷托槽下的微渗漏情况:方法:将 40 颗拔出的人类上颌前磨牙随机分为五组。按照组别,使用指定的粘接剂将涂有粘接剂的托槽系统和传统托槽系统粘接在牙齿表面。为模拟六个月的口腔环境,对所有牙齿进行热循环处理。使用微型计算机断层扫描(micro-CT)来观察和测量微渗漏。Kruskal-Wallis 检验用于比较参数,Mann-Whitney U 检验用于确定造成差异的组别。组内比较采用 Wilcoxon 符号秩检验:结果:Blugloo™组的微渗漏体积(mm3)和微渗漏百分比(%)与牙龈和咬合区相比明显较低(p3)和百分比(%)(p>0.05):预涂粘合剂的无闪托槽与传统的无闪托槽相比,在微渗漏量方面没有明显差异。使用 Blugloo™ 粘接剂粘接的托槽的微渗漏量明显少于其他组别。
Evaluation of Microleakage in Flash-Free and Conventional Ceramic Brackets: A Microcomputed Tomography Study.
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare microleakage under the conventional and flash-free ceramic brackets bonded with different agents.
Methods: Forty extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into five groups. According to the groups, adhesive coated and conventional bracket systems were bonded to the tooth surfaces with the specified adhesive agents. To simulate a six-month oral environment, all teeth were subjected to a thermal cycle procedure. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to view and measure the microleakage. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the parameters and Mann-Whitney U test was used for the determination of the group that caused the difference. For intragroup comparisons Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used.
Results: Microleakage volume (mm3) and microleakage percentage (%) measured in Blugloo™ group was found significantly lower (p<0.05) then other groups. There was no significant difference in microleakage volume (mm3) and percentage (%) in comparison of gingival and occlusal regions (p>0.05).
Conclusion: Adhesive precoated flash-free brackets were not shown a significant difference compared to their conventional equivalent for microleakage volume. The brackets bonded with Blugloo™ adhesive were showed significant less microleakage than the other groups.