Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Rocha,José Maurício da
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Gravina,Marco Abdo, Campos,Marcio José da Silva, Quintão,Cátia Cardoso Abdo, Elias,Carlos Nelson, Vitral,Robert Willer Farinazzo
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512014000100077
Resumo: OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength presented by three brands of polycrystalline ceramic brackets and one brand of metallic bracket; verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI) after the tests, and analyze, through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the enamel surface topography after debonding, detecting the release of mineral particles. METHODS: Sixty bovine lower incisors were used. Three ceramic brackets (Allure(r), InVu(r), and Clarity(r)) and one metallic bracket (Geneus(r)) were bonded with Transbond XT(r). Kruskal-Wallis's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of share bond and ARI. Mann Whitney's test was performed to compare the pairs of brackets in relation to their ARI. Brown-Forsythe's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of enamel chemical composition. Comparisons between groups were made with Games-Howell's and the Post-hoc tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the shear bond strength loads. Clarity(r) brackets were the most affected in relation to the surface topography and to the release of mineral particles of enamel (calcium ions). CONCLUSION: With regard to the ARI, there was a prevalence of score 4 (40.4%). As for enamel surface topography, the Geneus(r) bracket was the only one which did not show superficial tissue loss. The InVu(r) and Clarity(r) ones showed cohesive fractures in 33.3% and the Allure(r) in 50%, the latter being the one that presented most fractures during removal.
id DPI-1_2137b6c5b59b525d238cc313e5b785ad
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2176-94512014000100077
network_acronym_str DPI-1
network_name_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository_id_str
spelling Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic bracketsShear bond strengthTooth enamelOrthodontic bracketsScanning electron microscopy OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength presented by three brands of polycrystalline ceramic brackets and one brand of metallic bracket; verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI) after the tests, and analyze, through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the enamel surface topography after debonding, detecting the release of mineral particles. METHODS: Sixty bovine lower incisors were used. Three ceramic brackets (Allure(r), InVu(r), and Clarity(r)) and one metallic bracket (Geneus(r)) were bonded with Transbond XT(r). Kruskal-Wallis's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of share bond and ARI. Mann Whitney's test was performed to compare the pairs of brackets in relation to their ARI. Brown-Forsythe's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of enamel chemical composition. Comparisons between groups were made with Games-Howell's and the Post-hoc tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the shear bond strength loads. Clarity(r) brackets were the most affected in relation to the surface topography and to the release of mineral particles of enamel (calcium ions). CONCLUSION: With regard to the ARI, there was a prevalence of score 4 (40.4%). As for enamel surface topography, the Geneus(r) bracket was the only one which did not show superficial tissue loss. The InVu(r) and Clarity(r) ones showed cohesive fractures in 33.3% and the Allure(r) in 50%, the latter being the one that presented most fractures during removal. Dental Press International2014-02-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512014000100077Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.19 n.1 2014reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.077-085.oarinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessRocha,José Maurício daGravina,Marco AbdoCampos,Marcio José da SilvaQuintão,Cátia Cardoso AbdoElias,Carlos NelsonVitral,Robert Willer Farinazzoeng2015-08-21T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512014000100077Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2015-08-21T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
title Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
spellingShingle Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
Rocha,José Maurício da
Shear bond strength
Tooth enamel
Orthodontic brackets
Scanning electron microscopy
title_short Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
title_full Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
title_fullStr Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
title_full_unstemmed Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
title_sort Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets
author Rocha,José Maurício da
author_facet Rocha,José Maurício da
Gravina,Marco Abdo
Campos,Marcio José da Silva
Quintão,Cátia Cardoso Abdo
Elias,Carlos Nelson
Vitral,Robert Willer Farinazzo
author_role author
author2 Gravina,Marco Abdo
Campos,Marcio José da Silva
Quintão,Cátia Cardoso Abdo
Elias,Carlos Nelson
Vitral,Robert Willer Farinazzo
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Rocha,José Maurício da
Gravina,Marco Abdo
Campos,Marcio José da Silva
Quintão,Cátia Cardoso Abdo
Elias,Carlos Nelson
Vitral,Robert Willer Farinazzo
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Shear bond strength
Tooth enamel
Orthodontic brackets
Scanning electron microscopy
topic Shear bond strength
Tooth enamel
Orthodontic brackets
Scanning electron microscopy
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength presented by three brands of polycrystalline ceramic brackets and one brand of metallic bracket; verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI) after the tests, and analyze, through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the enamel surface topography after debonding, detecting the release of mineral particles. METHODS: Sixty bovine lower incisors were used. Three ceramic brackets (Allure(r), InVu(r), and Clarity(r)) and one metallic bracket (Geneus(r)) were bonded with Transbond XT(r). Kruskal-Wallis's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of share bond and ARI. Mann Whitney's test was performed to compare the pairs of brackets in relation to their ARI. Brown-Forsythe's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of enamel chemical composition. Comparisons between groups were made with Games-Howell's and the Post-hoc tests. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the shear bond strength loads. Clarity(r) brackets were the most affected in relation to the surface topography and to the release of mineral particles of enamel (calcium ions). CONCLUSION: With regard to the ARI, there was a prevalence of score 4 (40.4%). As for enamel surface topography, the Geneus(r) bracket was the only one which did not show superficial tissue loss. The InVu(r) and Clarity(r) ones showed cohesive fractures in 33.3% and the Allure(r) in 50%, the latter being the one that presented most fractures during removal.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-02-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512014000100077
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512014000100077
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.077-085.oar
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press International
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.19 n.1 2014
reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
instname:Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron:DPI
instname_str Dental Press International (DPI)
instacron_str DPI
institution DPI
reponame_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
collection Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository.name.fl_str_mv Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv artigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com
_version_ 1754122396818735104