【摘要】 目的:观察、比较不同黏结材料、不同酸蚀方法黏结正畸金属托槽后的微渗漏情况。方法:选择因正畸拔除的健康前磨牙36颗,随机分成3组,每组12颗。A组:37%磷酸酸蚀,京津釉质黏结剂黏结金属托槽;B组:37%磷酸酸蚀,3MTransbond光固化黏结剂黏结;C组:自酸蚀系统+3MTransbond光固化黏结剂。所有样本进行冷热循环,1%亚甲蓝溶液染色后,立体显微镜下观察并测量各组托槽周围微渗漏情况。用SPSS11.0统计软件对试验结果先进行方差齐性检验,F检验有统计学意义,进一步用Q检验进行组间比较。结果:①3组间微渗漏差别有统计学意义(F=22.462,P<0.01),两两比较发现,A组与B组的微渗漏差别无统计学意义(P>0.05);而A、B组均较C组的微渗漏小,差别有显著性(P<0.05)。②3组龈方微渗漏均大于牙合方,差别有统计学意义(分别为P<0.05、P<0.01、P<0.01)。结论:①微渗漏的大小与黏结剂的种类无明显关系。②不同酸蚀方法间的微渗漏差别明显,自酸蚀组较磷酸酸蚀组的微渗漏明显大。③同种材料、同种酸蚀方法,托槽龈方微渗漏明显大于牙合方。更多还原

【Abstract】 PURPOSE: To observe and compare the effect of different types of adhesive materials and different types of etching methods on microleakage around bonded metal brackets. METHODS: 36 healthy premolars extracted for orthodontic reason were selected in the study. The samples were divided into three groups, 12 in each. Group A was etched with 37% phosphate and bonded with Jingjin adhesive; Group B was with 37% phosphate+3M Transbond ; Group C was self-etching primer + 3M Transbond . All samples were thermalcycled for 500 times, then put into 1% methylenum solution for 24 hours. Microleakage of samples was observed under stereomicroscope. Multiple comparison and Student t test were used for the comparison of data samples(α=0.05). RESULTS: ①Significant difference of microleakage was found among three groups (F=22.462, P<0.01); Multiple comparison showed no significant difference between Group A and Group B (P>0.05), significant differences of microleakage were found between group A and C (P<0.05), group B and C (P<0.05), respectively. ② Significant differences between occlusal microleakage and gingival microleakage were found in group A (P<0.05), group B(P<0.01) and group C(P<0.01), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: ① The type of adhesive had no effect on microleakage. ②Different etching methods are relevant to microleakage, the microleakage of self-etching groups is much more than that of phosphate-etching groups. ③ Gingival microleakage is significantly larger than occlusal microleakage.更多还原