臨床上齒顎矯正醫師可能須將矯正支架黏著於不同型態補綴物上。本研究探討矯正支架黏著於臨時牙冠之黏著強度並使用有限元素方法進行模擬（Finite element method, FEM）藉此探討出黏著劑破壞斷裂機制。實驗採用三十顆小臼齒以及三十個臨時牙冠，所有牙齒與臨時牙冠分為四組，使用兩種黏著劑，分別為光照聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂（Enlight, Ormco）以及自行化學聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂（Rely-A-Bond, Reliance）將矯正支架黏著於牙齒與臨時牙冠上，再以萬用材料測試機，量測其剪力方向黏著強度。將試驗後樣本以電子顯微鏡（SEM）觀測並以adhesive remnant index （ARI）分析黏著劑破壞斷裂模式。
結果顯示四組平均剪應力(MPa)分別為：16.17± 4.64（第一組，矯正支架以光照聚合硬化含氟樹脂黏著於牙齒），13.33± 4.8 （第二組，矯正支架以自行化學聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂黏著於牙齒）、10.22± 3.57（第三組，矯正支架以光照聚合硬化含氟樹脂黏著於臨時牙冠）與6.46± 2.73 （第四組，矯正支架以光照聚合硬化含氟樹脂黏著於臨時牙冠）。統計上除第一、二組之外，各組皆有顯著差異。其中使用自行化學聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂黏著矯正支架於臨時牙冠上有最低剪應力6.46 ± 2.7 MPa。破壞模式部分，使用光照聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂黏著於牙齒與臨時牙冠，具兩種不同破壞介面，分別是黏著劑與矯正支架介面以及臨時牙冠與矯正支架介面；使用自行化學聚合硬化含氟複合樹脂破壞介面於黏著劑本身。此外，有限元素分析指出，實驗中雖施予剪力方向負荷，但黏著劑斷裂卻是受張應力影響產生破壞。

As many adult patiens have restored teeth with various restorative materials. The demand for orthodontic treatment for adult patients present the problem of bonding brackets to various restorative materials, including porcelain crown, veneer, mental crown, and temporary crown. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary crown and compared with bonding to teeth for clinical reference. This study also evaluated temporary crown stress distribution to identify the failure mechanism by finite element method.
Thirty premolars and thirty temporary crowns were evenly divided into four groups which were brackets were bonded to the temporary crown and premolar using light curing composite resin and chemical curing composite resin respectively. Shear bond strength was measured by an universal testing machine. In addition, all fractured samples were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The fracture mode was justified according to modified adhesive remnant index .
The mean shear bond strengths for the four groups were: 16.17± 4.6MPa (brackets bonded to the premolar using light curing composite resin), 13.33± 4.8MPa (brackets bonded to the premolar using chemical curing composite resin), 10.22± 3.6MPa (brackets bonded to the temporary crown using light curing composite resin) and 6.46± 2.7MPa (brackets bonded to the temporary crown using chemical curing composite resin) . Brackets were bonded to the temporary crown on premolar using chemical curing composite resin showed the weakest shear bond strength, which was 6.46± 2.7MPa. The ANOVA analysis indicated that significant difference existed between groups except for groups between light-cure tooth and self-cure tooth . The mode of failure demonstrated that in all the self curing resin groups the failure occurred on resin itself. In the light curing resin group bond failure occurred at the interface.
The shear bond strength of temporary crown was significantly lower than that of teeth. Using light curing composite resin provide better shear bond strength than chemical curing composite resin for temporary crown. Simulation results indicated that the maximum principal stress distribution obtain from FE analysis matched the initial failure site from mechanical testing and SEM results. The adhesive failure mechanism was suggested due to the tensile stress even through the structure was underwent the shear bond test.

1. Huang, T.-H. and C.-T. Kao, The shear bond strength of composite brackets on porcelain teeth. Eur J Orthod, 2001. 23(4): p. 433-439.
2. Murfitt P. G, et al., A randomised clinical trial to investigate bond failure rates using a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod, 2006. 28(5): p. 444-449.
3. Thiyagarajah S, Spary D. J, and Rock W. P, A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod, 2006. 33(3): p. 198-204.
4. Mandall N. A, et al., Orthodontic adhesives: a systematic review. J Orthod, 2002. 29(3): p. 205-10.
5. Fricker J. P, A 12-month clinical evaluation of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1994. 105(5): p. 502-5.
6. Marieb EM and Mallatt J, Human anatomy. 2003, San Francisco Benjamin Cummings.
7. Buonocore MG, A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res, 1955. 34: p. 849-53.
8. Newman G. V, Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1965. 51: p. 901-12.
9. Moin K and Dogon I. L, An evaluation of shear strength measurements of unfilled and filled resin combinations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthod, 1978. 74(5): p. 531-6.
10. Chalgren R, Combe E. C, and Wahl A. J, Effects of etchants and primers on shear bond strength of a self-ligating esthetic orthodontic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007. 132(5): p. 577 e1-5.
11. Bishara S. E, et al., Effect of changing enamel conditioner concentration on the shear bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2000. 118(3): p. 311-316.
12. Zachrisson B. U, Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1976. 69: p. 285-300.
13. Kurol J and Owman-Moll P, Hyalinization and root resorption during early orthodontic tooth movement in adolescents. Angle Orthod, 1998. 68(2): p. 161-5.
14. Anusavice KJ, Phillips's science of dental materials. Dental Cement. 2003.
15. Galindo HR. A, et al., An in vivo comparison between a visible light-cured bonding system and a chemically cured bonding system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 1998. 113(3): p. 271-275.
16. Rambhia S, et al., Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to provisional crown materials utilizing two different adhesives. Angle Orthod, 2009. 79: p. 784-789.
17. Chay, S.-H., et al., Effects of surface treatment and aging on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to provisional materials. Am J orthod dentofacial orthop, 2007. 132(5): p. 577.e7-577.e11.
18. Balkenhol M, et al., Mechanical properties of provisional crown and bridge materials: Chemical-curing versus dual-curing systems. Journal of Dentistry, 2008. 36(1): p. 15-20.
19. Reicheneder CA, et al., Shear and tensile bond strength comparison of various contemporary orthodontic adhesive systems：an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009. 135: p. 422.e1-422.e6.
20. Gungor AY, et al., Effects of fluorosis and self etching primers on shear bond strength s of orthodontic brackets. Eur J Dent, 2009. 3: p. 173-177.
21. Sargison AE, et al., A laboratory investigation to compare enamel preparation by sandblasting or acid etching prior bracket bonding. Br J Orthod, 1999. 26: p. 141-146.
22. Abu Alhaija ESJ and Al-Wahadni AMS, Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to dirrerent ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod, 2007. 29: p. 286-9.
23. HIOKI M, et al., Shear bond strength and FEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ― effects of tooth enamel shape and orthodontic bracket base configuration. Dent Mater J, 2007. 26(5): p. 700-707.
24. HIOKI M, NAKAHARA R, and NAKASONE Y, Shear bond strength and FEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ― effects of orthodontic bracket base configuration and the tooth enamel shape. Dent Mater J, 2005. 24: p. 223-230.
25. Bishara SE, et al., Shear bond strength comparison two adhesive systems follow thermocycling. Angle Orthod, 2007. 77: p. 337-341.
26. Endo T, et al., Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to deciduous and permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2008. 134(2): p. 198-202.
27. Chen, C.-S., et al., Failure Analysis: Enamel Fracture after Debonding Orthodontic Brackets. Angle Orthod, 2008. 78(6): p. 1071-1077.
28. Valletta R, et al., Evaluation of the debonding strength of orthodontic brackets using three different bonding systems. Eur J Orthod, 2007. 29(6): p. 571-577.
29. Reddy J. N, An introduction to the finite element method 2006, Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education.
30. Lavernhe P, et al., Orthodontic bonding: Finite element for standardized evaluations. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives, 2010. 30(1): p. 21-29.
31. Ozturk B, et al., Influence of different tooth types on the bond strength of two orthodontic adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod, 2008. 30(4): p. 407-12.
32. Bayram M, et al., Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to aged resin composite surfaces: effect of surface conditioning. Eur J Orthod, 2010.
33. David V. A, et al., Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2002. 121(3): p. 291-6.
34. Bulut H, et al., Evaluation of the shear bond strength of 3 curing bracket bonding systems combined with an antibacterial adhesive. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2007. 132(1): p. 77-83.
35. Lanza A, et al., 3D FEA of cemented steel, glass and carbon posts in a maxillary incisor. Dent Mater J, 2005. 21(8): p. 709-15.
36. Knox J, et al., An evaluation of the influence of orthodontic adhesive on the stresses generated in a bonded bracket finite element model. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2001. 119(1): p. 43-53.
37. Harari D, Gillis I, and Redlich M, Shear bond strength of a new dental adhesive used to bond brackets to unetched enamel. Eur J Orthod, 2002. 24(5): p. 519-524.
38. Powers J. M, Kim H. B, and Turner D. S, Orthodontic adhesives and bond strength testing. Semin Orthod, 1997. 3(3): p. 147-56.
39. Liu, J.-K., et al., Bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2005. 128(6): p. 761-765.