INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigated the nanohardness and elastic modulus of enamel after debonding metal brackets. METHODS: The surfaces of 3 maxillary premolars were subdivided into 3 regions. Two regions were exposed to a conventional etching system (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and a self-etching system (Transbond Plus primer, 3M Unitek); the third region was not etched. Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT composite to the 2 etched regions. After storage for 24 hours in distilled water, the brackets and residual adhesive were removed, and the teeth were sectioned transversely. Seven nanoindentations (2 mN load) were placed 1 to 25 μm from the surface in each region. Mean nanohardness and elastic modulus were compared with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffé test. RESULTS: Locations 1 and 5 μm from the enamel surface had significantly (P < 0.05) lower nanohardness and elastic modulus values for the conventional system compared with the self-etching system and the unetched region. All other locations for the conventional system and all locations for the self-etching system and unetched area had no significant differences. The nanohardness was much higher than the Vickers hardness for enamel. CONCLUSIONS: The minimal effect of the self-etching system on the nanomechanical properties of enamel arises from much lower chemical attack. The much greater effects of the conventional system require further study.
INTRODUCTION: In this study, we investigated the nanohardness and elastic modulus of enamel after debonding metal brackets. METHODS: The surfaces of 3 maxillary premolars were subdivided into 3 regions. Two regions were exposed to a conventional etching system (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and a self-etching system (Transbond Plus primer, 3M Unitek); the third region was not etched. Metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT composite to the 2 etched regions. After storage for 24 hours in distilled water, the brackets and residual adhesive were removed, and the teeth were sectioned transversely. Seven nanoindentations (2 mN load) were placed 1 to 25 μm from the surface in each region. Mean nanohardness and elastic modulus were compared with analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Scheffé test. RESULTS: Locations 1 and 5 μm from the enamel surface had significantly (P < 0.05) lower nanohardness and elastic modulus values for the conventional system compared with the self-etching system and the unetched region. All other locations for the conventional system and all locations for the self-etching system and unetched area had no significant differences. The nanohardness was much higher than the Vickers hardness for enamel. CONCLUSIONS: The minimal effect of the self-etching system on the nanomechanical properties of enamel arises from much lower chemical attack. The much greater effects of the conventional system require further study.
Authors: Mariana Almeida Mello Proença; Karime Tavares Lima da Silva; Alisson Costa E Silva; Edilausson Moreno Carvalho; José Bauer; Ceci Nunes Carvalho Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2020-02-17