Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ºÎÂø À¯ÁöÀåÄ¡ÀÇ Á÷, °£Á¢ ºÎÂø¹ý¿¡ µû¸¥ Àü´Ü Á¢Âø·Â ºñ±³

Direct and indirect bonding of wire retainers to bovine enamel using three resin systems: shear bond strength comparisons

Korean Journal of Orthodontics 2011³â 41±Ç 6È£ p.447 ~ 453
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸

Abstract


Objective: We compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of lingual retainers bonded to bovine enamel with three different resins using direct and indirect methods.

Methods: Both ends of pre-fabricated twisted ligature wires were bonded to bovine enamel surfaces using Light-Core, Tetric N-Flow, or Transbond XT. Phosphoric acid-etched enamel surfaces were primed with One-Step prior to bonding with Light-Core or Tetric N-Flow. Transbond XT primer was used prior to bonding with Transbond XT. After 24 hours in water at , we performed SBS tests on the samples. We also assigned adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores after debonding and predicted the clinical performance of materials and bonding techniques from Weibull analyses.

Results: Direct bonding produced significantly higher SBS values than indirect bonding for all materials. The SBS for Light-Core was significantly higher than that for Tetric N-Flow, and there was no significant difference between the direct bonding SBS of Transbond XT and that of Light-Core. Weibull analysis indicated Light-Core performed better than other indirectly bonded resins.

Conclusions: When the SBS of a wire retainer is of primary concern, direct bonding methods are superior to indirect bonding methods. Light-Core may perform better than Transbond XT or Tetric N-Flow when bonded indirectly.

Å°¿öµå

Lingual bonded retainer; Shear bond strength; Direct and indirect bonding

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

   

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

SCI(E)
KCI
KoreaMed