5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较

doi:10.19439/j.sjos.2019.02.006

上海口腔医学 ›› 2019, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (2): 136-140.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2019.02.006

5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较

钮晔, 安贝尔, 敬怡, 张泽宇, 肖立伟

中南大学湘雅二医院,湖南长沙 410000

收稿日期:2018-07-13 修回日期:2018-09-19 出版日期:2019-04-25 发布日期:2019-06-20
通讯作者: 肖立伟,E-mail：Xiao_lw@csu.edu.cn
作者简介:钮晔（1994-）,女,学士,E-mail:newyear2030@163.com

Comparisons of five different resin-removal methods on enamel surface

NIU Ye, Ahmad Ghiaz Hussien Anbar, JIN Yi, ZHANG Ze-yu, XIAO Li-wei

The Second Xiangya Hospital of Central South University. Changsha 410000, Hunan Province, China

Received:2018-07-13 Revised:2018-09-19 Online:2019-04-25 Published:2019-06-20

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 目的通过比较5种方法去除牙面残余正畸粘接剂对牙面的影响及操作所用时间,为筛选最佳去牙面粘接树脂方法提供参考。方法选用正畸治疗需要拔除的健康前磨牙40颗,按不同的去牙面粘接剂方法随机分为5组,每组8颗。在常规粘接托接槽并去粘接后,分别用碳化钨钻（A组）、碳化钨钻+矽粒子（B组）、金刚砂钻（C组）、金刚砂钻+矽粒子（D组）、矽粒子（E组）做牙面处理,记录各组操作时间(T),并在扫描电镜(SEM)下观察、照相,记录釉质损伤指数（enamel damage index）。采用SPSS20.0软件包对操作时间T及EDI分别进行单因素方差分析及非参数秩变换分析。结果各组EDI排序为C组>D组>A组>B组>E组,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。各组操作时间排序为E组>D组>B组>A组>C组,差异具有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论用高速碳化钨钻加矽粒子去除残余粘接剂对釉质损伤较小且操作时间合理,值得临床推荐。

关键词: 去粘接, 矽粒子, 釉质损伤指数, 扫描电镜

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare enamel surface state and operating time following debonding by using 5 different resin removal methods. METHODS: Forty healthy human premolars extracted for orthodontic purpose were selected and then divided into 5 groups randomly based on different resin-removal methods, 8 in each group. After regular bonding brackets and debonding, tungsten carbide bur (group A), tungsten carbide bur+silicon particles(group B), corundum bur(group C), corundum bur+silicon particles (group D) and silicon particles (group E) were used respectively to deal with the enamel surfaces. The operating time(T) of each group was recorded. The samples were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM), and enamel damage index(EDI) was recorded. The scores of EDI were analysed using SPSS 20.0 software package . RESULTS: The order of EDI was group C>group D>group A >group B>group E, significant difference was found between 5 groups (P<0.05). The order of operating time was group E>group D>group B>group A>group C, significant difference was found between 5 groups (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using tungsten carbide bur followed by silicon particles to remove residual resin on enamel surface causes less damage to the enamel surface, and requires reasonable time.

Key words: Debonding, Silicon particles, EDI, SEM

中图分类号:

R783.5

钮晔, 安贝尔, 敬怡, 张泽宇, 肖立伟. 5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较[J]. 上海口腔医学, 2019, 28(2): 136-140.

NIU Ye, Ahmad Ghiaz Hussien Anbar, JIN Yi, ZHANG Ze-yu, XIAO Li-wei. Comparisons of five different resin-removal methods on enamel surface[J]. Shanghai Journal of Stomatology, 2019, 28(2): 136-140.

参考文献

[1] 李有名. 几种去除牙面正畸残留粘接剂方法的效果评价[D]. 石家庄: 河北医科大学, 2009.
[2] 严宏, 张端强, 苏杰华. 不同釉质粘接剂去除方法对牙面着色影响分析[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2009, 2(9): 544-546.
[3] Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinsahin A, et al.Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets[J]. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76(6): 314-321.
[4] Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ.The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study[J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1995, 108(3): 284-293.
[5] 舒广, 罗旭, 许天民. 4种方法去除牙面正畸树脂粘接剂的效果评价[J].中华口腔正畸学杂志, 2007, 14(3): 117-120.
[6] 杨佳佳, 罗瑞, 许晓, 等. 不同车针去除正畸粘接剂对表面粗糙度的影响[J].口腔材料器械杂志, 2017, 26(3): 124-128.
[7] 陈骊, 张菊菊, 赵丙姣. 3种方法去除金属托槽粘接剂对牙面影响的研究[J].中国美容医学, 2011, 20(1): 126-129.
[8] 祝媛, 冮卫东, 汪春仙, 等. 残留牙面粘接剂不同去除方法对牙面的影响[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2013, 29(8): 488-490.
[9] 田杰, 林薇薇, 冯雪, 等. 去除正畸粘接剂后釉质表面的扫描电镜观察[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志, 1997, 7(2): 91-93.
[10] 陈双, 樊明月, 涂世军, 等. 2种方法去除正畸牙面树脂粘结剂的效果评价[J]. 口腔医学, 2011, 31(11): 644-646.
[11] Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Szatkiewicz T, Tomkowski R, et al.Effect of orthodontic debonding and adhesive removal on the enamel - current knowledge and future perspectives-a systematic review[J]. Med Sci Monit, 2014, 20: 1991-2001.
[12] Oliver RG, Griffiths J.Different techniques of residual composite removal following debonding--time taken and surface enamel appearance[J]. Br J Orthod, 1992, 19(2): 131-137.
[13] 孔卫东, 杨建浩, 胡湘权, 等. 5种去金属托槽粘接剂方法对牙釉质影响的实验研究[J].暨南大学学报(自然科学与医学版), 2007, 28(4): 385-388.
[14] Gwinnett AJ, Gorelick L.Microscopic evaluation of enamel after debonding: clinical application[J]. Am J Orthod, 1977, 71(6): 651-665.
[15] 陈骊, 赵丙姣, 张菊菊. 托槽去除后不同牙面处理方法的比较[J].上海口腔医学, 2008, 17(2): 208-211.
[16] 程静涛, 郭天文, 肖惠军, 等. 不同预备程序对基牙表面粗糙度的影响[J]. 实用口腔医学杂志, 2001, 17(6): 524-526.
[17] Sigilião LC, Marquezan M, Elias CN, et al.Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study [J]. Dental Press J Orthod, 2015, 20(5): 78-85.

5种不同去牙面正畸残余粘接剂方法比较

Comparisons of five different resin-removal methods on enamel surface

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

参考文献

相关文章 1

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价