Esra Bolat Gümüş1, Samed Şatir2, Alper Kuştarci3. 1. Orthodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey. 2. Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Alanya Alaaddin Keykubat University, Antalya, Turkey. 3. Endodontics Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Akdeniz University, Antalya, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI on the adhesion between the orthodontic brackets and the teeth by evaluating the microleakage between the enamel, adhesive and brackets interfaces. METHODS: 58 extracted human premolars which were received a standard bracket bonding procedure were randomly divided into three groups; control group (n = 20; no MRI), 1.5 T MRI group (n = 19; 20 min MRI exposure of 1.5 T) and 3 T MRI group (n = 19; 20 min MRI exposure of 3 T). The teeth were kept in distiled water for 2 weeks, and thereafter subjected to 500 thermal cycles. Then, specimens were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 h, sectioned and photographed under a stereomicroscope. Microleakage was scored with regard to the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces at the occlusal and gingival levels. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-Dunn tests. RESULTS: All of the groups exhibited statistically similar microleakage scores in the adhesive-enamel interface along occlusal margins (p>0.05, p = 0.331). The mean microleakage scores along gingival margins in the 3 T MRI group was significantly higher compared to the control group both in the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces (p<0.05, p = 0.019 and p = 0.020 respectively). The microleakage scores along the gingival margins were also significantly higher than the occlusal margins in the 3 T MRI group (p<0.05, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: 3 T MRI may weaken the adhesion between the enamel and the stainless steel orthodontic brackets.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects of 1.5 T and 3 T MRI on the adhesion between the orthodontic brackets and the teeth by evaluating the microleakage between the enamel, adhesive and brackets interfaces. METHODS: 58 extracted human premolars which were received a standard bracket bonding procedure were randomly divided into three groups; control group (n = 20; no MRI), 1.5 T MRI group (n = 19; 20 min MRI exposure of 1.5 T) and 3 T MRI group (n = 19; 20 min MRI exposure of 3 T). The teeth were kept in distiled water for 2 weeks, and thereafter subjected to 500 thermal cycles. Then, specimens were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 h, sectioned and photographed under a stereomicroscope. Microleakage was scored with regard to the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces at the occlusal and gingival levels. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-Dunn tests. RESULTS: All of the groups exhibited statistically similar microleakage scores in the adhesive-enamel interface along occlusal margins (p>0.05, p = 0.331). The mean microleakage scores along gingival margins in the 3 T MRI group was significantly higher compared to the control group both in the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces (p<0.05, p = 0.019 and p = 0.020 respectively). The microleakage scores along the gingival margins were also significantly higher than the occlusal margins in the 3 T MRI group (p<0.05, p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: 3 T MRI may weaken the adhesion between the enamel and the stainless steel orthodontic brackets.
Entities:
Keywords:
Adhesive; Artefacts; Magnetic resonance imaging; Orthodontic brackets; Orthodontics
Authors: J Matthew Elison; V Leroy Leggitt; Matthew Thomson; Udo Oyoyo; N Dan Wycliffe Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 2.650
Authors: Marc Regier; Jörn Kemper; Michael G Kaul; Markus Feddersen; Gerhard Adam; Bärbel Kahl-Nieke; Arndt Klocke Journal: J Orofac Orthop Date: 2009-12-04 Impact factor: 1.938
Authors: N Chow; K S Hwang; S Hurtz; A E Green; J H Somme; P M Thompson; D A Elashoff; C R Jack; M Weiner; L G Apostolova Journal: AJNR Am J Neuroradiol Date: 2015-01-22 Impact factor: 3.825