Literature DB >> 7733057

Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.

J A Miguel1, M A Almeida, O Chevitarese.   

Abstract

The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure. Brackets were bonded, using both materials, in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro. A total of 225 teeth, 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group, were tested. Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months, and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the materials. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate (7.96%) than the glass ionomer cement (50.89%), regardless of the dental arch tested. Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite, it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1995        PMID: 7733057     DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70115-x

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


  7 in total

1.  Clinical evaluation of the failure rates of metallic brackets.

Authors:  Fábio Lourenço Romano; Américo Bortolazzo Correr; Lourenço Correr-Sobrinho; Maria Beatriz Borges de Araújo Magnani; Antônio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2012 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 2.698

Review 2.  Retention of orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified GIC versus composite resin adhesives--a quantitative systematic review of clinical trials.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal; Avijit Banerjee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.573

3.  Do bonding agents protect the bracket-periphery?--Evaluation by consecutive μCT scans and fluorescence measurements.

Authors:  Ekaterini Paschos; Teresa Galosi; Karin C Huth; Ingrid Rudzki; Andrea Wichelhaus; Karl-Heinz Kunzelmann
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 3.573

4.  Suitability of orthodontic brackets for rebonding and reworking following removal by air pressure pulses and conventional debracketing techniques.

Authors:  Michael Knösel; Simone Mattysek; Klaus Jung; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Reza Sadat-Khonsari; Dirk Ziebolz
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.079

5.  The effect of pre-cure bracket movement on shear bond strength during placement of orthodontic brackets, an in vitro study.

Authors:  Byron Tam; Prashanti Bollu; Kishore Chaudhry; Karthikeyan Subramani
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-10-01

Review 6.  Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  Nicky A Mandall; Joy Hickman; Tatiana V Macfarlane; Rye Cr Mattick; Declan T Millett; Helen V Worthington
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2018-04-09

7.  Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions.

Authors:  Matheus Melo Pithon; Márlio Vinícius de Oliveira; Antonio Carlos de Oliveira Ruellas; Ana Maria Bolognese; Fábio Lourenço Romano
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 2.698

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.