COMPARATIVE STUDY OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES FOR VARIOUS BAND CEMENTS

수종의 밴드 접착 시멘트의 물성에 대한 비교 연구

  • Yang, Kyu-Ho (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, and Dental Research Institute and second stage of BK 21) ;
  • Kim, Ki-Baek (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, and Dental Research Institute and second stage of BK 21) ;
  • Kim, Seon-Mi (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, and Dental Research Institute and second stage of BK 21) ;
  • Choi, Nam-Ki (Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, and Dental Research Institute and second stage of BK 21)
  • 양규호 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 소아치과학교실, 치의학연구소 및 BK21 사업단) ;
  • 김기백 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 소아치과학교실, 치의학연구소 및 BK21 사업단) ;
  • 김선미 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 소아치과학교실, 치의학연구소 및 BK21 사업단) ;
  • 최남기 (전남대학교 치의학전문대학원 소아치과학교실, 치의학연구소 및 BK21 사업단)
  • Published : 2009.08.31

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the shear-peel strength and the fracture site of 5 commercially available orthodontic band cements. One hundred molar bands were cemented to extracted human 3rd molars. The specimens were prepared in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for each cement. After storage in a humidor at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was assessed for each specimen using an universal testing machine with crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. Maximal failure stress was converted to mean shear-peel strength, MPa. The predominant site of band failure was recorded visually for all specimens as either at the band/cement or cement/enamel interface. Mean shear-peel strength of Ormco was the highest(2.44${\pm}$0.57), followed by Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$(2.24${\pm}$0.50), $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$(2.10${\pm}$0.57), 3M $Unitek^{TM}$(1.82${\pm}$0.43), $Band-Lok^{TM}$(1.73${\pm}$0.28). There were statistically significant differences between Ormco and $Band-Lok^{TM}$, Ormco and 3M $Unitek^{TM}$, and Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$ and $Band-Lok^{TM}$(p<0.05). The predominant site of bonding failure for bands cemented with the Ormco was at the band/cement interface, whereas bands cemented with Ultra $Band-Lok^{TM}$ failed predominantly at the enamel/cement interface. There was no significant difference among the other cements(Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$, 3M $Unitek^{TM}$, $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$).

본 연구의 목적은 시중에 유통되고 있는 밴드 시멘트들을 종류별로 이용하여 교정용 밴드의 결합강도를 비교하고, 각 시멘트의 파절 양상을 비교하여 교정용 밴드에 대한 사용지침을 마련하는데 도움이 되고자 하였다. 100개의 발거된 인간의 제 3대구치를 이용해 실험군은 총 5개의 군으로 하였으며, 각 군당 시편수가 20개가 되도록 임의적으로 분류하였다. 실험에 사용한 밴드 시멘트는 다음과 같다; Ormco gold, Ultra $Band-Lok^{TM}$, Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$ LC, 3M $Unitek^{TM}$ Multi-Cure Glass Ionomer, $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$. Universal testing machine(Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA)를 사용하여 최대하중값을 측정하였고, 전단결합강도 값을 계산하였다. 밴드가 탈락한 후, 탈락 부위를 평가하여 법랑질과 시멘트, 시멘트와 밴드 사이로 구분하였다. 밴드의 전단강도는 One-way ANOVA를 이용하여 통계처리 하였으며 Tukey test를 이용하여 검정하였다. 또한 탈락 부위는 Chi-squre analysis를 이용하여 통계 처리하였고, Fisher's exact test로 군간 유의성을 검정하였다. 실험 결과 평균 파절 강도는 Ormco군이 가장 높았고(2.44${\pm}$0.57), Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$군(2.24${\pm}$0.50), $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$군(2.10${\pm}$0.57), 3M $Unitek^{TM}$군(1.82${\pm}$0.43), $Band-Lok^{TM}$군(1.73${\pm}$0.28) 순이었으며, Ormco군은 $Band-Lok^{TM}$군과 3M $Unitek^{TM}$군, Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$군은 $Band-Lok^{TM}$군과만 통계적으로 유의할만한 차이를 보였다(p<0.05). 파절 양상에서 Ormco군과 $Band-Lok^{TM}$군은 서로뿐만 아니라 다른 군과 유의할만한 차이를 보였으며, Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$, 3M $Unitek^{TM}$, $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$ 군 간에는 유의한 차이가 없었다.

Keywords

References

  1. Millett DT, Hallgren A, Fornell AC, et al. : Bonded molar tubes: a retrospective evaluation of clinical performance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 115:667-674, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70293-3
  2. Millett DT, Duff S, Morrison L, et al. : In vitro comparison of orthodontic band cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:15-20, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2003.48
  3. 김형준, 정태성, 김신 : 접착용 시멘트의 균일한 도포를 위한 교정용 밴드 장착방법의 모색. 대한소아치과학회지, 33:491-497, 2006.
  4. Norris DS, McInnnes-Ledoux P, Schwaninger B, et al. : Retention of orthodontic bands with new fluoride- releasing cements. Am J Orthod, 89:206-211, 1986. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(86)90033-3
  5. Wilson AD, Kent BE : A new translucent cement for dentistry, Br Dent J, 132:133-135, 1972. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4802810
  6. Kocadereli I, Ciger S : Retention of orthodontic bands with three different cements. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 19:127-130, 1995.
  7. Gillgrass TJ, Benington PC, Millett DT, et al. : Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? A comparative clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 120:49-53, 2001. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.115035
  8. 황규선, 김종수, 권순원 : 컴포머의 불소 유리 및 항우식 효과에 관한 비교 연구. 대한소아치과학회지, 29:1-10, 2002.
  9. Liebmann SM, Jost-Brinkmann PG : In vitro study of resin-modified glass ionomer cements for cementation of orthodontic bands. J Orofac Orthop, 60:348-360, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01301247
  10. Millett DT, Doubleday B, Alatsaris M, et al. : Chlorhexidine-modified glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro study. J Orthod, 32:36-42, 2005. https://doi.org/10.1179/14653120522502078
  11. Aggarwal M, Foley TF, Rix D : A comparison of shear-peel band strengths of 5 orthodontic cements. Angle Orthod, 70:308-316, 2000.
  12. Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick CR, et al. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 18:1-15, 2007.
  13. Brown D : Orthodontic band cements. Br J Orthod, 16;127-131, 1989.
  14. Millett DT, Cummings A, Letters S, et al. : Resinmodified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? - an in vitro evaluation. Eur J Orthod, 25:609-614, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/25.6.609
  15. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG : A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod, 21:33-43, 1994.
  16. Millet DT, McCabe JF, Bennett TG, et al. : The effect of sandblasting on the retention of first molar orthodontic bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. Br J Orthod, 22: 161-169, 1995.
  17. Millett DT, Kamahli K, McColl J : Comparative laboratory investigation of dual-cured vs conventional glass ionomer cements for band comentation. Angle Orthod, 68:345-350, 1998.
  18. Millett DT, Hallgren A, McCluskey LA, et al. : A clinical retrospective evaluation of 2 orthodontic band cements. Angle Orthod, 71:470-476, 2001.
  19. Mennemeyer VA, Neuman P, Powers JM : Bonding of hybrid ionomers and resin cements to modified orthodontic band materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 115:143-147, 1999. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70341-0
  20. Knox J, Chye KY, Durning P : An ex vivo evaluation of resin-modified glass polyalkenoates and polyacid- modified composite resins as orthodontic band cements. J Orthod, 31:323-328, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531204225020697