Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Alencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Data de Publicação: 2016
Outros Autores: Nobrega,Maria de Lourdes Martins, Dametto,Fabio Roberto, Santos,Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos, Pinheiro,Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
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=S2176-94512016000600043
Resumo: ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. Results: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. Conclusion: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.
id DPI-1_c28ff447887d72317da4cc3b81ccafd1
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2176-94512016000600043
network_acronym_str DPI-1
network_name_str Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
repository_id_str
spelling Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agentsOrthodonticsComposite resinsLensesABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. Results: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. Conclusion: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.Dental Press International2016-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512016000600043Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics v.21 n.6 2016reponame:Dental Press Journal of Orthodonticsinstname:Dental Press International (DPI)instacron:DPI10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.oarinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAlencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana eNobrega,Maria de Lourdes MartinsDametto,Fabio RobertoSantos,Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dosPinheiro,Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitãoeng2017-02-17T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2176-94512016000600043Revistahttp://www.scielo.br/dpjoONGhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phpartigos@dentalpress.com.br||davidnormando@hotmail.com2177-67092176-9451opendoar:2017-02-17T00:00Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics - Dental Press International (DPI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
spellingShingle Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
Alencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Orthodontics
Composite resins
Lenses
title_short Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_fullStr Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_sort Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
author Alencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
author_facet Alencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Nobrega,Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto,Fabio Roberto
Santos,Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos
Pinheiro,Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
author_role author
author2 Nobrega,Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto,Fabio Roberto
Santos,Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos
Pinheiro,Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Alencar,Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Nobrega,Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto,Fabio Roberto
Santos,Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos
Pinheiro,Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Orthodontics
Composite resins
Lenses
topic Orthodontics
Composite resins
Lenses
description ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. Results: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. Conclusion: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.
publishDate 2016
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2016-12-01
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=S2176-94512016000600043
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512016000600043
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.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.21 n.6 2016
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_ 1754122397688004608