Microleakage under ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer.
Microleakage under ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer.
复制标题
DOI：
10.2319/102607-508.1
复制
发表时间：
2009-06
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
S. Ramoglu;T. Uysal;Mustafa Ulker;H. Ertas
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Ramoglu;T. Uysal;Mustafa Ulker;H. Ertas
目的验证光固化树脂改性玻璃离聚体粘接的陶瓷和金属托槽在咬合和龈缘的粘接干涉微渗漏与常规粘接无显著性差异的原假设。材料与方法将60颗新鲜拔除的人上颌前磨牙随机分为4组，每组15颗。金属和陶瓷支架用树脂改性玻璃离子胶粘剂（RMGIA）粘接在1组和2组上。将金属和陶瓷支架用常规胶粘剂（CA）系统粘接到第3组和第4组。微泄漏评价采用染料渗透法。在体视显微镜下观察牙釉质-粘接剂和支架-粘接剂界面的微渗漏情况。采用Kruskal-Wallis检验和Mann-Whitney u检验进行统计分析，并进行Bonferroni校正。结果两种粘接剂界面牙龈侧微漏评分均高于咬合侧。所有托槽和粘接剂组合在牙槽牙合侧和牙龈侧牙釉质-粘接剂和粘接剂-托槽界面的微渗漏差异均有统计学意义（P < 0.001）。对比两种胶粘剂体系，不同界面间RMGIA比CA表现出更多的微泄漏。结论：假设被否定。RMGIA导致了瓷釉-胶粘剂界面间更多的微泄漏。
OBJECTIVE To test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the microleakage of adhesive interferences at the occlusal and gingival margins of both ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer and a conventional adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS Sixty freshly extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth each. Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded to groups 1 and 2 with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive (RMGIA). Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded to group 3 and group 4 with a conventional adhesive (CA) system. A dye-penetration method was used for microleakage evaluation. Microleakage from the occlusal and gingival margins was determined by a stereomicroscope for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test with a Bonferroni correction. RESULTS The gingival side of all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with the occlusal side for both adhesive interfaces. All bracket and adhesive combinations displayed statistically significant differences in microleakage between the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides of the brackets (P < .001). When the adhesive systems were compared, the RMGIA showed more microleakage than the CA between the different interfaces. CONCLUSIONS The hypothesis is rejected. RMGIA results in more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces.