Literature DB >> 11941343

Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing.

Valerie A David1, Robert N Staley, Harold F Bigelow, Jane R Jakobsen.   

Abstract

The cleanup of remnant bonding adhesive from the enamel surface after debonding is an important factor for clinicians. The purposes of this study were to compare the weight, the surface area, and the cleanup times of remnant adhesive for a composite resin, Transbond (TB); a resin-modified glass ionomer, Fuji ORTHO LC bonded to enamel both conditioned (FOC) and nonconditioned (FONC); and a fluoride-releasing composite resin, Advance (ADV), bonded to nonetched enamel. In addition, 2 qualitative methods for scoring remnant adhesive were compared with the quantitative weight and area data. Forty extracted human incisors were weighed, bonded with brackets, debonded, weighed, and photographed. Area was measured from the photographs with a sonic digitizer. Mean adhesive remnant weights differed between groups (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P =.02): The remnants from ADV and FOC were equal and both significantly heavier than the remnants from FONC; the weights of the TB remnants were intermediate between the heavier ADV and FOC remnants and the lighter FONC remnants. Mean remnant areas differed between groups (ANOVA, P =.03): The remnants from ADV were significantly larger than the remnants from TB and FONC, which were equal; the areas of the FOC remnants were intermediate between the larger ADV remnants and the smaller remnants from TB and FONC. Mean cleanup times also differed between groups (ANOVA, P <.001): TB and FOC had equal times that were significantly longer than the times for ADV and FONC, which were equal. Adhesives bonded to acid-etched or conditioned enamel took about 1 and a half times longer to clean up than did those bonded to nonetched enamel. When bonded to conditioned enamel, the resin-modified glass ionomer had mean remnant adhesive weights, areas, and cleanup times statistically equivalent to TB. ADV had the fastest mean cleanup time per amount of remnant (ANOVA, P <.002). The graphs of scores for 2 qualitative methods used for scoring remnant amount did not closely resemble the graphs based on weight and area. The graph of a newly introduced qualitative method better reflected the area data. Weighing may be a useful method for quantifying remnant adhesive.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2002        PMID: 11941343     DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.121008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  11 in total

1.  Qualitative and quantitative evaluation of human dental enamel after bracket debonding: a noncontact three-dimensional optical profilometry analysis.

Authors:  Fabiano G Ferreira; Darcy F Nouer; Nelson P Silva; Ivana U Garbui; Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho; Paulo R A Nouer
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Shear bond strength of different adhesives tested in accordance with DIN 13990-1/-2 and using various methods of enamel conditioning.

Authors:  C Richter; P-G Jost-Brinkmann
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2015-03       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.

Authors:  Thorsten Grünheid; Brent E Larson
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2018-09-19       Impact factor: 2.079

4.  Effect of Various Finishing Procedures on the Reflectivity (Shine) of Tooth Enamel - An In-vitro Study.

Authors:  Harshal Ashok Patil; Shrikant Shrinivas Chitko; Veerendra Virupaxappa Kerudi; Amit Ratanlal Maheshwari; Neeraj Suresh Patil; Pawankumar Dnyandeo Tekale; Ketan Ashorao Gore; Amit Ashok Zope
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-08-01

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

Authors:  Sanja Jurišić; Gordan Jurišić; Hrvoje Jurić
Journal:  Acta Stomatol Croat       Date:  2015-12

6.  Comparison of the Effects of Various Methods Used to Remove Adhesive from Tooth Surfaces on Surface Roughness and Temperature Changes in the Pulp Chamber.

Authors:  Mihri Amasyalı; Fidan Alakuş Sabuncuoğlu; Şeyda Ersahan; Elif Aybala Oktay
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2019-09-01

7.  Effects of removing adhesive from tooth surfaces by Er:YAG laser and a composite bur on enamel surface roughnessand pulp chamber temperature.

Authors:  Sogra Yassaei; Hossein Aghili; Neda Joshan
Journal:  Dent Res J (Isfahan)       Date:  2015 May-Jun

8.  Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Mona A Montasser; Mahasen Taha
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2014-07-18       Impact factor: 2.750

9.  Enamel Surface Evaluation after Removal of Orthodontic Composite Remnants by Intraoral Sandblasting Technique and Carbide Bur Technique: A Three-Dimensional Surface Profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.

Authors:  Amol C Mhatre; Arundhati P Tandur; Sumitra S Reddy; B C Karunakara; H Baswaraj
Journal:  J Int Oral Health       Date:  2015

10.  Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes.

Authors:  Joanna Janiszewska-Olszowska; Katarzyna Tandecka; Tomasz Szatkiewicz; Katarzyna Sporniak-Tutak; Katarzyna Grocholewicz
Journal:  Head Face Med       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 2.151

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.