Dataset Information

Do fluorescent agents alter the mechanical strength of orthodontic adhesives? An in vitro and clinical study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Fluorescent agents are added to orthodontic adhesives with the aim of making them visible under ultraviolet (UV) light, which ensures the complete, safe removal of remnants after orthodontic treatment. However, it is necessary to evaluate if the mechanical strength of these materials is maintained. Therefore, this study evaluated whether the addition of fluorescent agents influences the shear bond strength and clinical performance of a UV light-sensitive adhesive system. METHODS:This study consisted of two stages: (1) In vitro phase: 40 human teeth were selected, divided at random into 2 groups (n = 20), according to the adhesive system used: UV group-adhesive with fluorescent agent, and control group-conventional adhesive. A shear bond strength test was performed using a DL 2000 universal testing machine, at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The accessories were removed and an evaluation of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was carried out. (2) Clinical phase: 8 patients were selected and had their appliances bonded using the split-mouth design (160 teeth) with the same tested adhesive systems (UV, n = 80; control, n = 80). The patients were monitored for bonding failure for a period of 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using the Independent t test, chi-squared tests, and Mann-Whitney test, at a level of significance of 5% and confidence interval of 95%. RESULTS:Regarding the in vitro phase, the shear bond strength test yielded similar results in the two groups (p > 0.05) and the ARI showed statistically significant differences between the groups with a score of 1 being the most frequent ARI for both groups (70%). In addition, there was no clinical difference in terms of bonding failure between the groups (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION:The addition of fluorescent elements does not alter the mechanical strength and performance of the orthodontic adhesive and represents a viable alternative for clinical application.

SUBMITTER: Rossato PH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7008105 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Do fluorescent agents alter the mechanical strength of orthodontic adhesives? An in vitro and clinical study.

Rossato Paulo Henrique PH Kaneshima Edmilson Nobumito EN Domingues Fábio F Fernandes Thais Maria Freire TMF Berger Sandrine Bittencourt SB Oltramari Paula Vanessa Pedron PVP

Progress in orthodontics 20200210 1

<h4>Background</h4>Fluorescent agents are added to orthodontic adhesives with the aim of making them visible under ultraviolet (UV) light, which ensures the complete, safe removal of remnants after orthodontic treatment. However, it is necessary to evaluate if the mechanical strength of these materials is maintained. Therefore, this study evaluated whether the addition of fluorescent agents influences the shear bond strength and clinical performance of a UV light-sensitive adhesive system.<h4>Me ...[more]

PMID: 32037477

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionDevelopment of white spot lesions (WSLs) during orthodontic treatment is a common risk factor. Fixation of the orthodontic appliances with glass ionomer cements could reduce the prevalence of WSL's due to their fluoride release capacities. The purpose of this study was to evaluate differences of fluoride release properties from resin-modified and conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs).MethodsThe resin-modified GICs Fuji ORTHO LC (GC Orthodontics), Meron Plus QM (VOCO), as well as the conventional GICs Fuji ORTHO (GC Orthodontics), Meron (VOCO) and Ketac Cem Easymix (3M ESPE) were tested in this study. The different types of GICs were applied to hydroxyapatite discs according to the manufacturer's instructions and stored in a solution of TISAB III (Total Ionic Strength Adjustment Buffer III) and fluoride-free water at 37°C. Fluoride measurements were made after 5 minutes, 2 hours, 24 hours, 14 days, 28 days, 2 months, 3 months and 6 months. One factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the overall comparison of the cumulative fluoride release (from measurement times of 5 minutes to 6 months) between the different materials with the overall level of significance set to 0.05. Tukey's post hoc test was used for post hoc pairwise comparisons in the cumulative fluoride release between the different materials.ResultsThe cumulative fluoride release (mean ± sd) in descending order was: Fuji ORTHO LC (221.7 ± 10.29 ppm), Fuji ORTHO (191.5 ± 15.03 ppm), Meron Plus QM (173.0 ± 5.89 ppm), Meron (161.3 ± 7.84 ppm) and Ketac Cem Easymix (154.6 ± 6.09 ppm) within 6 months. Analysis of variance detected a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release between at least two of the materials (rounded p-value < 0.001). Pairwise analysis with Tukey's post hoc test showed a significant difference in the cumulative fluoride release for all the comparisons except M and MPQM (p = 0.061) and KCE and M (p = 0.517).ConclusionFluoride ions were released cumulatively over the entire test period for all products. When comparing the two products from the same company (Fuji ORTHO LC vs. Fuji ORTHO from GC Orthodontics Europe GmbH and Meron Plus QM vs. Meron from VOCO GmbH, Mannheim, Germany), it can be said that the resin-modified GICs have a higher release than conventional GICs. The highest individual fluoride release of all GICs was at 24 hours. A general statement, whether resin-modified or conventional GICs have a higher release of fluoride cannot be made.

Project description:Introduction: Remineralizing agents may be used for the treatment of white spot lesions (WSLs) prior to bracket bonding. However, some concerns exist regarding their possible interference with the etching and bonding process, negatively affecting the bond strength. This study aimed to assess the effect of two remineralizing agents with/without CO2 laser irradiation on the mechanical properties and shear bond strength (SBS) of demineralized enamel to the orthodontic bracket. Methods: This study evaluated 60 premolar teeth in 6 groups (n=10) as follows: (I) sound enamel, (II) demineralized enamel, (III) Nupro remineralizing agent (N), (IV) Nupro and CO2 laser (N/L), (V) Teethmate remineralizing agent (T), and (VI) Teethmate and CO2 laser (T/L). The remineralizing agents were applied to the enamel surfaces after their immersion in a demineralizing solution for 5 days. In groups IV and VI, the CO2 laser with a 10.6 ?m wavelength, 10 ms pulse duration, a 50 Hz repetition rate, 0.3 mm beam diameter and 0.7 W power was irradiated after applying the remineralizing agents. Brackets were bonded to the enamel surfaces and SBS was measured by a universal testing machine. For the assessment of enamel microhardness, 20 sections of molar teeth were divided into 4 groups (n=5; N, N/L, T, T/L) and their microhardness was measured before demineralization, after demineralization and after remineralization. X-ray diffraction (XRD) analysis, field-emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) and energy-dispersive spectrometry (EDS) were carried out to assess the formation of hydroxyapatite. The atomic percentages of the C, O, P, Ca, Na, Si, F and Ca/P ratio were determined by EDS analysis. Results: The SBS significantly decreased in group II (P<0.001). There was no significant difference among the groups I, III, IV, V and VI (P<0.05). This finding was similar to the microhardness results, which showed an increase in microhardness after remineralization (P<0.05), with no difference among the remineralizing agents. The Ca/P ratio was the highest in the Nupro group and the lowest in the demineralized group. Conclusion: Remineralizing agents can significantly improve the microhardness and structural properties of demineralized enamel to a level similar to that of sound enamel with no adverse effect on SBS to orthodontic brackets.

Dataset Information

Do fluorescent agents alter the mechanical strength of orthodontic adhesives? An in vitro and clinical study.

Publications

Do fluorescent agents alter the mechanical strength of orthodontic adhesives? An in vitro and clinical study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure