Evaluation of enamel roughness after the removal of brackets bonded with different materials: In vivo study

• Autor(a) principal: Caixeta,Rodrigo Vieira
• Data de Publicação: 2021
• Outros Autores: Berger,Sandrine Bittencourt, Lopes,Murilo Baena, Paloco,Eloisa Aparecida Carlesse, Faria-Júnior,Élcio Mário, Contreras,Edwin Fernando Ruiz, Gonini-Júnior,Alcides, Guiraldo,Ricardo Danil
• Tipo de documento: Artigo
• Idioma: eng
• Título da fonte: Brazilian Dental Journal
• Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0103-64402021000500034
• topic: Micro-shear bond strength; Bleaching; Self-etch adhesives

Abstract The aims of this in vivo study were to evaluate the effect of bonding with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and to assess enamel surface roughness before and after the removal of brackets bonded with composite or RMGIC from the maxillary central incisors. Fifteen orthodontic patients were selected for the study. For each patient, the teeth were rinsed and dried, and brackets were bonded with composite (Transbond XT) and RMGIC (Vitremer Core Buildup/Restorative). At the conclusion of orthodontic treatment, their brackets were removed. Dental replicas were made of epoxy resin in initial conditions (before bonded) and after polishing with an aluminum oxide disc system. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) and surface roughness was measured on the dental replicas and data were evaluated statistically by Mann-Whitney and paired t-test, respectively. No bracket debonding occurred during patients’ treatment periods. It was verified that the ARI values of the two maxillary central incisors were similar (p = 0.665). For both bonding materials, the ARI value of 3 was predominant. After polishing, surface roughness was similar in the composite and RMGIC groups (0.245 μm and 0.248 μm, respectively; p = 0.07). In both groups, enamel surface roughness values were significantly lower after polishing compared with the initial condition (p < 0.001). RMGIC promoted efficiency in cementing brackets without fail during treatment; the choice of composite or RMGIC materials was not a factor that influenced the roughness of the enamel surface, however, polishing led to smoother surfaces than those found at the beginning of the treatment.