A. D. Bona, Ricardo Kochenborger, Luís Antônio Di Guida
{"title":"陶瓷和金属正畸托槽与老化树脂基复合修复体的结合强度","authors":"A. D. Bona, Ricardo Kochenborger, Luís Antônio Di Guida","doi":"10.2174/2542579X01666180919121640","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n\nBackground: Dental resin composites undergo chemical and mechanical degradation.\nThus, the orthodontist should evaluate aged composite restoration surfaces to select the appropriate\nprotocol to successfully bond orthodontics accessories.\n\nObjective: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (σ) of metal (M) and ceramic (C) brackets\nbonded to aged resin-based composite restorations (ACR) after different surface treatments.\n\nMethods: ACR specimens (N=160) were fabricated and divided into 8 experimental groups (n=20)\nas follows: Mo (control)- M bonded to ACR; MA- M bonded to ACR after acid etching using 38%\nphosphoric acid for 20 s (A); MB- M bonded to ACR after surface roughing using a twelve-bladed\nbur (B); MBA- M bonded to ACR after B and A; Co (control)- C bonded to ACR; CA- C bonded to\nACR after A; CB- C bonded to ACR after B; CBA- C bonded to ACR after B and A. All specimens\nwere stored for 24h before σ testing. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and\nTukey post-hoc (α=0.05). Fracture surfaces were examined to determine the failure mode.\n\nResults: The surface treatments (A, B and BA) produced similar σ values (p>0.05) to ACR when\nusing the same bracket type. M bracket showed greater σ than C bracket (p<0.05), probably because\nof different mechanical retention inherent from bracket type. Inhomogeneous stress distribution\ngenerated complex failures.\n\nConclusion: Considering the needs of an orthodontic treatment and the surface treatments evaluated,\nsufficient bond strength was produced to ACR, irrespective of bracket type.\n","PeriodicalId":10853,"journal":{"name":"Current opinion in dentistry","volume":"18 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bond Strength of Ceramic and Metal Orthodontic Brackets to Aged Resinbased Composite Restorations\",\"authors\":\"A. D. Bona, Ricardo Kochenborger, Luís Antônio Di Guida\",\"doi\":\"10.2174/2542579X01666180919121640\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n\\nBackground: Dental resin composites undergo chemical and mechanical degradation.\\nThus, the orthodontist should evaluate aged composite restoration surfaces to select the appropriate\\nprotocol to successfully bond orthodontics accessories.\\n\\nObjective: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (σ) of metal (M) and ceramic (C) brackets\\nbonded to aged resin-based composite restorations (ACR) after different surface treatments.\\n\\nMethods: ACR specimens (N=160) were fabricated and divided into 8 experimental groups (n=20)\\nas follows: Mo (control)- M bonded to ACR; MA- M bonded to ACR after acid etching using 38%\\nphosphoric acid for 20 s (A); MB- M bonded to ACR after surface roughing using a twelve-bladed\\nbur (B); MBA- M bonded to ACR after B and A; Co (control)- C bonded to ACR; CA- C bonded to\\nACR after A; CB- C bonded to ACR after B; CBA- C bonded to ACR after B and A. All specimens\\nwere stored for 24h before σ testing. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and\\nTukey post-hoc (α=0.05). Fracture surfaces were examined to determine the failure mode.\\n\\nResults: The surface treatments (A, B and BA) produced similar σ values (p>0.05) to ACR when\\nusing the same bracket type. M bracket showed greater σ than C bracket (p<0.05), probably because\\nof different mechanical retention inherent from bracket type. Inhomogeneous stress distribution\\ngenerated complex failures.\\n\\nConclusion: Considering the needs of an orthodontic treatment and the surface treatments evaluated,\\nsufficient bond strength was produced to ACR, irrespective of bracket type.\\n\",\"PeriodicalId\":10853,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current opinion in dentistry\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current opinion in dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2174/2542579X01666180919121640\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current opinion in dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2174/2542579X01666180919121640","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3
摘要
背景:牙科树脂复合材料经历化学和机械降解。因此,正畸医生应该评估老化的复合修复表面,以选择合适的方案来成功粘合正畸配件。目的:研究不同表面处理后金属(M)和陶瓷(C)托槽与老化树脂基复合修复体(ACR)的剪切结合强度(σ)。方法:制作ACR标本160份,分为8个实验组(N= 20),分别为:Mo(对照)- M与ACR结合;MA- M在38%磷酸酸蚀20 s (A)后与ACR键合;用十二刃刀进行表面粗加工后与ACR结合的MB- M (B);MBA- M在B和A之后与ACR键合;Co (control)- C键合ACR;CA- C与A后的acr键合;CB- C在B后与ACR键合;CBA- C在B和a后与ACR结合,所有样品保存24h后进行σ测试。数据采用单因素方差分析和事后分析(α=0.05)。对断口表面进行检查以确定其破坏模式。结果:表面处理(A、B、BA)与ACR在相同托槽类型下的σ值相近(p>0.05)。M型托槽的σ值大于C型托槽(p<0.05),这可能是由于托槽类型所固有的机械固位不同所致。不均匀的应力分布产生了复杂的破坏。结论:考虑到正畸治疗的需要和表面处理的评估,无论托槽类型如何,都能产生足够的ACR结合强度。
Bond Strength of Ceramic and Metal Orthodontic Brackets to Aged Resinbased Composite Restorations
Background: Dental resin composites undergo chemical and mechanical degradation.
Thus, the orthodontist should evaluate aged composite restoration surfaces to select the appropriate
protocol to successfully bond orthodontics accessories.
Objective: This study evaluated the shear bond strength (σ) of metal (M) and ceramic (C) brackets
bonded to aged resin-based composite restorations (ACR) after different surface treatments.
Methods: ACR specimens (N=160) were fabricated and divided into 8 experimental groups (n=20)
as follows: Mo (control)- M bonded to ACR; MA- M bonded to ACR after acid etching using 38%
phosphoric acid for 20 s (A); MB- M bonded to ACR after surface roughing using a twelve-bladed
bur (B); MBA- M bonded to ACR after B and A; Co (control)- C bonded to ACR; CA- C bonded to
ACR after A; CB- C bonded to ACR after B; CBA- C bonded to ACR after B and A. All specimens
were stored for 24h before σ testing. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and
Tukey post-hoc (α=0.05). Fracture surfaces were examined to determine the failure mode.
Results: The surface treatments (A, B and BA) produced similar σ values (p>0.05) to ACR when
using the same bracket type. M bracket showed greater σ than C bracket (p<0.05), probably because
of different mechanical retention inherent from bracket type. Inhomogeneous stress distribution
generated complex failures.
Conclusion: Considering the needs of an orthodontic treatment and the surface treatments evaluated,
sufficient bond strength was produced to ACR, irrespective of bracket type.