OBJECTIVE: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). DESIGN: In vitro study. SETTING: Dental Materials Laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time. RESULTS:Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To compare the mean retentive strength, predominant site of band failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth at deband and survival time of orthodontic micro-etched bands cemented with chlorhexidine-modified (CHXGIC) or conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC). DESIGN: In vitro study. SETTING: Dental Materials Laboratory. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One-hundred-and-twenty intact, caries-free third molars were collected from patients attending for third molar surgery. These were stored for 3 months in distilled water and decontaminated in 0.5% chloramine. To assess retentive strength, 80 teeth were randomly selected and 40 were banded with each cement. Testing was undertaken using a Nene M3000 testing machine at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min. Following debanding, the predominant site of failure was recorded as cement-enamel or cement-band interface. The amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface following deband was assessed and coded. Survival time for another 40 banded specimens, 20 cemented with each cement, was assessed following application of mechanical stress in a ball mill. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Retentive strength, predominant site of failure, amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface, survival time. RESULTS: Mean retentive strength for bands cemented with CHXGIC (0.32 MPa, SD 0.09) or GIC (0.28 MPa, SD 0.07) did not differ significantly (p=0.05). All bands failed at the enamel-cement interface. There was no significant difference in the amount of cement remaining on the tooth surface after deband for each cement type (p=0.23). The mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC was 7.0 and 6.4 hours, respectively (p=0.23). CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in mean retentive strength, amount of cement remaining on the tooth after deband or mean survival time of bands cemented with CHXGIC or GIC. Bands cemented with either cement failed predominantly at the enamel-cement interface. The results suggest that CHXGIC may have comparable clinical performance to GIC for band cementation.
Authors: Marcel M Farret; Eduardo Martinelli de Lima; Eduardo G Mota; Hugo M S Oshima; Valdir Barth; Silvia D de Oliveira Journal: Angle Orthod Date: 2011-02-07 Impact factor: 2.079
Authors: Jithendra Ratnayake; Arthi Veerasamy; Hassan Ahmed; David Coburn; Carolina Loch; Andrew R Gray; Karl M Lyons; Nicholas C K Heng; Richard D Cannon; Marcus Leung; Paul A Brunton Journal: Materials (Basel) Date: 2022-07-20 Impact factor: 3.748
Authors: José Lucas Dos Santos Araújo; Mariana Massi Afonso Alvim; Márcio José da Silva Campos; Ana Carolina Morais Apolônio; Fabíola Galbiatti Carvalho; Rogério Lacerda-Santos Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2021-08-24