hrcak mascot   Srce   HID

Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1

Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets

Sanja Jurišić ; Dental Polyclinic Jurišić, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Gordan Jurišić ; Dental Polyclinic Jurišić, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina
Hrvoje Jurić   ORCID icon orcid.org/0000-0003-1567-8706 ; School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia

Puni tekst: engleski, pdf (190 KB) str. 269-274 preuzimanja: 251* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Jurišić, S., Jurišić, G. i Jurić, H. (2015). Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (4), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
MLA 8th Edition
Jurišić, Sanja, et al. "Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 4, 2015, str. 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1. Citirano 24.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Jurišić, Sanja, Gordan Jurišić i Hrvoje Jurić. "Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 4 (2015): 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
Harvard
Jurišić, S., Jurišić, G., i Jurić, H. (2015). 'Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(4), str. 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
Vancouver
Jurišić S, Jurišić G, Jurić H. Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 24.06.2021.];49(4):269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
IEEE
S. Jurišić, G. Jurišić i H. Jurić, "Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 4, str. 269-274, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
Puni tekst: hrvatski, pdf (190 KB) str. 269-274 preuzimanja: 306* citiraj
APA 6th Edition
Jurišić, S., Jurišić, G. i Jurić, H. (2015). Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica. Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49 (4), 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
MLA 8th Edition
Jurišić, Sanja, et al. "Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica." Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol. 49, br. 4, 2015, str. 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1. Citirano 24.06.2021.
Chicago 17th Edition
Jurišić, Sanja, Gordan Jurišić i Hrvoje Jurić. "Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica." Acta stomatologica Croatica 49, br. 4 (2015): 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
Harvard
Jurišić, S., Jurišić, G., i Jurić, H. (2015). 'Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica', Acta stomatologica Croatica, 49(4), str. 269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
Vancouver
Jurišić S, Jurišić G, Jurić H. Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica. Acta stomatologica Croatica [Internet]. 2015 [pristupljeno 24.06.2021.];49(4):269-274. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1
IEEE
S. Jurišić, G. Jurišić i H. Jurić, "Utjecaj adheziva i postupaka pripreme cakline na smičnu snagu vezivanja ortodontskih bravica", Acta stomatologica Croatica, vol.49, br. 4, str. 269-274, 2015. [Online]. https://doi.org/10.15644/asc49/4/1

Rad u XML formatu

Sažetak
Aim: The objective of present study was to examine influence of adhesives and methods of enamel pretreatment on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. The adhesives used were resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements-GIC (Fuji Ortho LC) and composite resin (Transbond XT). Material and Methods: The experimental sample consisted of 80 extracted human first premolars.
The sample was divided into four equal groups, and the metal brackets were bonded with different enamel pretreatments by using two adhesives: group A-10% polyacrylic acid; Fuji Ortho LC, group B–37% phosphoric acid; Fuji Ortho LC, group C–self etching primer; Transbond XT, group D–37% phosphoric acid, primer; Transbond XT. SBS of brackets was measured. After debonding of brackets, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated. Results: After the statistical analysis of the collected data was performed (ANOVA; Sheffe post-hoc test), the results showed that significantly lower SBS of the group B was found in relation to the groups C (p=0.031) and D (p=0.026). The results of ARI were similar in all testing groups and it was not possible to determine any statistically significant difference of the ARI (Chi- square test) between all four experimental groups. Conclusion: The conclusion is that the use of composite resins material with appropriate enamel pretreatment according to manufacturer’s recommendation is the “gold standard” for brackets bonding for fixed orthodontic appliances.

Ključne riječi
Orthodontic Brackets; shear bond strength; Adhesives; Composite Resins; Dental Enamel

Hrčak ID: 149774

URI
https://hrcak.srce.hr/149774

▼ Article Information



Introduction

Fixed orthodontic appliances are used in modern orthodontic treatment in about 70-80% of cases. Fixed orthodontics is unthinkable without adhesive composite resin materials and glass ionomer cements (GIC). In the early 1950s, a pioneering introduction of adhesive materials in dental medicine took place. This was followed by further development of dental adhesives, enabling their use also in fixed orthodontics (1). Unfilled Bowen’s ethers, or ethers with small filler content, are mainly used in orthodontics as adhesives. Primers are most often the chemical agents applied in a monomolecular layer on the surface of the material to be bonded, changing its properties in order to provide better adhesion. The bond between enamel and adhesive is achieved by mechanical bonding based on geometric surface roughness and creation of micro pores, as well as by rheological effect that occurs when adhesive changes from fluid to solid (2).

Orthodontic composite resin adhesives

Two-component composite resins are mainly used as adhesives in orthodontics. A contact of two components causes polymerization reaction. Nowadays, the adhesive MIP (Moisture Insensitive Primer) materials are being developed. They contain hydrophilic primer that dissolves in acetone, and the recommendation is to use it on a slightly moist conditioned enamel (3).

Glass ionomer cements (GIC)

First GIC were described by Smith and Wilson (4). They are prepared by mixing of powder and water solution of acid (Ca-fluoroaluminosilicate powder and polyacrylic acid). The basic chemical reaction during cement polymerization is neutralization between fluid (acid) and powder (base), which results in creation of salt (polymerized GIC) and water (1, 5).

Modified GIC

In an attempt to improve chemical and mechanical properties of cements, various additives were added to them, such as amalgam or silver. The most important additives to GIC from the aspect of their evolution are resins. Resins were added in an attempt to improve mechanical and aesthetic qualities, along with increasing adhesion and preserving fluoride release capacity. These materials were able to solve most of the problems in brackets bonding during fixed orthodontics treatment (6).

The most common clinical problems are still bracket debonding, emergence of early carious lesions (white spots) and low resistance of adhesive materials to moisture prior to the polymerization (7-11). Orthodontic adhesive should be appropriate for allowing bracket to stay bonded to the enamel surface during the orthodontic therapy and also, to allow simple bracket removal when it is needed, but with no signs of damaging to enamel and without discomfort for patients (12). Research-based findings have constantly led to the development of new materials and usage of new techniques that are aimed at simplifying the clinical procedures (13). Different studies have already been conducted concerning the usage of almost all these materials but always with different procedures, therefore the evaluation and the comparison are limited (14). The purpose of the present study was to examine the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to enamel surface with respect to the type of adhesive material used and enamel pretreatment. After brackets debonding, we also wanted to analyze the amount of remaining adhesive material on tooth surface. The null hypothesis was that the type of adhesive material has impact on SBS of brackets to enamel surface, while methods of enamel pretreatment have no impact on SBS of brackets to enamel surface.

Materials and methods

Experimental groups consisted of 80 human first premolars of both jaws that had been extracted due to orthodontic reasons. The buccal enamel surface of all teeth was intact, without caries lesions and macroscopic visible fracture lines after extraction. Following extraction, the residue on the teeth was removed and washed away with tap water. The buccal surface was cleaned with rotating synthetic brush on slow hand piece and pumice. The teeth were disinfected in 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol solution for 24 hours. All samples were transferred to distilled water for a maximum of 4 months before testing, while the distilled water was changed every week. A written consent was obtained from the teeth donors. Two orthodontic adhesives were used:

  1. Light cure resin-reinforced GIC, Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan)

  2. Light cure adhesive composite resin paste, Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California. USA).

With regard to the enamel pretreatment and type of orthodontic adhesive, the teeth were divided into four equal examination groups (20 teeth each):

ENAMEL PRETREATMENT ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVE

  • Group A: 10% polyacrylic acid, 20 sec.; Fuji Ortho LC

  • Group B: 37% phosphoric acid, 15 sec.; Fuji Ortho LC

  • Group C: self-etching primer- Transbond Plus SEP, 3 sec.; Transbond XT

  • Group D: 37% phosphoric acid, 15sec.; primer-Transbond MIP; Transbond XT

Metallic brackets Discovery for premolars were used (Dentaurum, Germany). All enamel surfaces were prepared according to the above mentioned protocols and manufacturer’s instructions. LED polymerization lamp Bluephase (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) was used for light curing. After brackets bonding and adhesive material polymerization, all teeth were stored for 24 hours in saline at 370C. Subsequently they were inserted into plaster molds and examination started as follows: the debonding force values for every specimen were recorded in a digital shredding machine (Zwick nr: 112627, Ulm, Germany). To calculate SBS, the debonding force values (N) were converted to SBS (MPa) by taking into account the surface area of the bracket base, which was 10.3 mm2 (obtained from the manufacturer- Dentaurum, Germany).

The second test was performed by light microscopy (Richter Optica U2B Binocular Lab Microscope, China). The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was determined (15). The ARI was ranked from 0 to 3 as follows:

  • 0 = no adhesive on the enamel;

  • 1 = less than 50% adhesive on the enamel;

  • 2 = more than 50% adhesive on the enamel;

  • 3 = 100% adhesive on the enamel.

Statistical analysis was carried out with SPSS 17.0 for Windows statistical software package. Among descriptive statistical parameters, the arithmetic means, standard deviations and median and interquartile range were calculated. For testing the difference between parametric variables, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used. Afterwards, the ANOVA Scheffe’s test was used for multiple comparisons between individual groups. Chi- square test was used to analyze the ARI data. The data distribution was tested by Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Statistical difference in all tests of p < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

The results of ANOVA test are presented in Table 1 and a statistically significant difference between the groups was found (p=0.007).

Table 1 Shear bond strength differences between examined groups (ANOVA)
Group

A
B
C
D
F
p


SD

SD

SD

SD


Shear bond strength (MPa)10.846.007.253.1411.494.0011.603.934.3870.007

After the difference between the groups was established based on ANOVA, Scheffe’s post-hoc test was used for multiple comparisons between individual groups. According to Scheffe’s test, a significantly lower SBS of the group B was found in relation to the group C (p=0.031). Also, a significantly lower SBS of the group B was found in relation to the group D (p=0.026). There were no statistically significant differences between group A and group B (p= 0.091), between group A and group C (p=0.975) and between group A and group D (p=0.961). Also, there were no statistically significant differences between group C and group D (p=1). Chi- square test was used to analyze the ARI data. The difference of ARI scores is presented in Table 2. Results of ARI were almost similar in all testing groups and it was not possible to determine any statistically significant difference of the ARI between all four experimental groups.

Table 2 Distribution frequency and percentages of ARI (Chi- square test)
Groupχ2P
A
B
C
D
N
%
N
%
N
%
N
%


ARI score14.0260.094*
0420.0420.0735.01050.0
11050.0630.01155.0630.0
215.0525.000.015.0
3
5
25.0
5
25.0
2
10.0
3
15.0


Discussion

SBS of bracket - adhesive - enamel system in orthodontic bonding varies and depends on factors such as the adhesive types, design of the bracket base, morphology of the enamel, appliance force systems and the clinician's technique (16). The orthodontic profession is constantly searching improvements and optimization of the technique of bonding brackets to enamel (17). In this study, SBS of metallic orthodontic brackets was analyzed regarding to applied enamel pretreatment and the type of used adhesive material (resin-reinforced GIC or composite resin). The aim was also to determine the influence of various adhesive materials and enamel pretreatment on the ARI. Therefore, it can be said that the aims of the present study were directed toward clarification of the facts to what extent enamel pretreatment methods influenced SBS and to what extent SBS depended on the applied adhesive material. After statistical analysis of the collected data, statistically significant lower SBS of the group B was found in relation to the groups C (p=0.031) and D (p=0.026).

The results of previous studies were uneven. The results of Shinya et al. revealed that SBS was neither significantly influenced by etching pattern on the enamel surface nor by the adhesive system (18). Our results showed that SBS was significantly influenced by the adhesive system. Scougall Vilchis et al. showed that when enamel was conditioned with SEP, SBS was statistically lower than when it was etched with 37% phosphoric acid (19). Our results were not consistent with their conclusion. Our results were in agreement with the report by Cal-Neto et al. who did not find any significant difference SBS between usage of Transbond MIP and Transbond SEP (20). Scribante at al. compared SBS with Trans-bond XT, Fuji Ortho LC and Tetric Flow adhesive systems and reported that the highest SBS was found with Trans-bond XT adhesive system (21). Our results were consistent with that report. Yassaei et al. compared SBS with Trans-bond XT and Fuji Ortho LC for bonding metal and ceramic brackets and reported that SBS when using Trans-bond XT was statistically better than with Fuji Ortho LC (22). We used metal brackets only and our results were identical. The null hypothesis was supported and confirmed by our results. Our study showed that the great amount of ARI scores in all examined groups were 0 or 1, referring to the fact that adhesives had a better chance to stay on the bracket as opposed to the enamel after debonding procedures. From the clinical perspective, that would be desirable as it would take less time for enamel clean-up and less discomfort for patients. Less adhesive remaining on the tooth surface would result in a reduction of the damage of enamel during the debonding procedures (23). No significant difference between groups according to the ARI was found in our study and the established variation of the ARI within testing groups could be declared as accidental, which is in accordance with previous study of Rix et al. and Movahhed et al. (24, 25). ARI scores are used to define the site of bond failure between the enamel, adhesive, and bracket base. In our study, bond failure site was unaffected by the type of adhesive material and methods of enamel pretreatment.

Conclusion

Composite resin showed a higher shear bonding strength than GIC. From our results it can be concluded that the use of composite resin material with appropriate enamel pretreatment according to manufactures recommendation is the “gold standard” for brackets bonding for fixed orthodontic appliances.

Notes

[1] Conflicts of interest None declared

References

1 

Brantley WA. Eliades, T – editors. Orthodontic materials. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001.

2 

Rajagopal R, Padmanabhan S, Gnanamani J. A comparison of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of conventional, moisture insensitive, and self-etching primers in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2004 Apr;74(2):264–8. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15132455

3 

David V, Staley R, Bigelow H, Jacobsen J. Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Mar;121(3):291–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.121008 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11941343

4 

Bishara S, Laffoon J, VonWald L, Warren J. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of cyanoacrylate and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Mar;121(3):297–300. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.121012 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11941344

5 

Evans LJ, Peters C, Flickinger C, Taloumis L, Dunn W. A comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets using various light sources, light guides, and cure times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 May;121(5):510–5. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.121558 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12045769

6 

D KR. V KM, Safeena S. Shear bond strength of acidic primer, light-cure glass ionomer, light-cure and self cure composite adhesive systems - an in vitro study. J Int Oral Health. 2013 Jun;5(3):73–8. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24155606

7 

Romano FL, Valério RA, Gomes-Silva JM, Ferreira JT, Faria G, Borsatto MC. Clinical evaluation of the failure rate of metallic brackets bonded with orthodontic composites. Braz Dent J. 2012;23(4):399–402. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000400015 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23207856

8 

Enaia M, Bock N, Ruf S. White-spot lesions during multibracket appliance treatment: A challenge for clinical excellence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2011 Jul;140(1):e17–24. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.12.016 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21724067

9 

Buyuk S, Cantekin K, Demirbuga S, Ozturk M. Are the low-shrinking composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding. Eur J Dent. 2013 Jul;7(3):284–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.115411 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24926207

10 

Chalipa J, Akhondi M, Arab S, Kharrazifard M, Ahmadyar M. Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with nano-filled composites. J Dent (Tehran). 2013 Sep;10(5):461–5. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24910655

11 

Ozer M, Bayram M, Dincyurek C, Tokalak F. Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2014 Jan;84(1):155–60. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/022013-149.1 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23819593

12 

Klocke A, Tadic D, Kahl-Nieke B, Epple M. An optimized synthetic substrate for orthodontic bond strength testing. Dent Mater. 2003 Dec;19(8):773–8. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(03)00025-3 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14511736

13 

Pithon MM, de Olivera MV, Ruellas AC, Bolognese AM, Romano FL. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007 Apr;15(2):127–30. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000200010 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19089115

14 

Baysal A, Uysal T. Do enamel microabrasion and casein phosphopeptide–amorphous calcium phosphate affect shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to a demineralized enamel surface. Angle Orthod. 2012 Jan;82(1):36–41. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/041211-265.1 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21787200

15 

Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:333–40. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6231863

16 

Markovic E, Glisic B, Scepan I, Markovic D, Jokanovic V. Bond strength of ortodontic adhesives. J Metall. 2011;•••:79–88.

17 

Fitzgerald I, Bradley GT, Bosio JA, Hefti AF, Berzins DW. Bonding with self-etching primers-pumice or pre-etch? An in vitro study. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Apr;34(2):257–61. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq197 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21300729

18 

Shinya M, Shinya A, Lassila LV, Gomi H, Varrela J, Vallittu PK, et al. Treated enamel surface patterns associated with five orthodontic adhesive systems--surface morphology and shear bond strength. Dent Mater J. 2008 Jan;27(1):1–6. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.27.1 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18309605

19 

Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Hotta M, Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of a new fluoride-relasing orthodontic adhesive. Dent Mater J. 2007 Jan;26(1):45–51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.4012/dmj.26.45 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17410892

20 

Cal-Neto JP, Carvalho F, Almeida RC, Miguel JA. Evaluation of a new self-etching primer on bracket bond strength in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):466–9. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16637728

21 

Scribante A, Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini M. Effect of various adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of fiber-reinforced composite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Aug;130(2):224–7. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.03.020 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16905068

22 

Yassaei S, Davari A, Goldani Moghadam M, Kamael A. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of RMGI and Composite Resin for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding. J Dent (Tehran). 2014 May;11(3):282–9. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25628663

23 

Sajadi SS, Eslami Amirabadi G, Sajadi S. Effects of two soft drinks on shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of orthodontic metal brackets. J Dent (Tehran). 2014 Jul;11(4):389–97. PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25584049

24 

Rix D, Foley T, Mamandras A. Comparsion of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC and glass-filled GIC. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jan;119(1):36–42. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.110519 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11174538

25 

Movahhed HZ, Ogaard B, Syverud M. An in vitro comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and a composite adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2005 Oct;27(5):477–83. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cji051 PubMed: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16043469


This display is generated from NISO JATS XML with jats-html.xsl. The XSLT engine is libxslt.

[hrvatski]

Posjeta: 945 *