Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: SENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira de
Data de Publicação: 2018
Outros Autores: BARBOSA,Helga Adachi Medeiros, CALDAS,Sergei Godeiro Fernandes Rabelo, OZCAN,Mutlu, SOUZA,Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Brazilian Oral Research
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100247
Resumo: Abstract The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and polymerization protocols on the bond strength of brackets to enamel, and the degree of conversion of the bonding agents. 120 bovine crowns were embedded in acrylic resin blocks and sanded. Next, the blocks were randomly assigned into 12 groups. Metal brackets were bonded to enamel according to the “surface treatment” factor (A: Phosphoric Acid; ATxt: Phosphoric Acid + Transbond XT Primer®; Tse: Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer®; and SBU: Scotchbond Universal®) and “polymerization” factor (R20: Radii-Cal®/20 seconds; V20: Valo Cordless®/20 seconds; and V3: Valo Cordless®/3 seconds). All samples were stored for 6 months (water, 37ºC) and then subjected to a shear bond strength test (SBS). Bond failures were classified according to the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (5%). Using the same factors, 120 resin discs were made to assess the degree of conversion (DC) of the monomer. Data from the SBS (MPa) and DC (%) were analyzed by analysis of variance (2 factors) and Tukey’s test (5%). For the SBS, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 8.1B; V20 = 13.2A; V3 = 5.2C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 3.1C; ATxt = 13.6A; Tse = 12.3A; SBU = 6.3B, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant among groups. The highest adhesion value were found for the ATxt/V20 group (22.2A) and the lowest value for the A/R20 group (1.2E). Regarding ARI, score 2 was the most prevalent in groups A, ATxt, V20 and V3, while score 4 was the most prevalent in the Tse, SBU and R20 groups, with no significant difference between them (p = 1.0). Regarding DC, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 66.6A; V20 = 58.4B; V3 = 45.1C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 52B, ATxt = 59.7A, Tse = 51.4B, SBU = 63.8A, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant. Tse was more sensitive to the variations in polymerization protocols than the other surface treatments. Treatment A did not present suitable bond strength or degree of conversion.
id SBPQO-1_51a62f95cdfdc7da773b33fa9428e874
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S1806-83242018000100247
network_acronym_str SBPQO-1
network_name_str Brazilian Oral Research
repository_id_str
spelling Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamelAdhesivenessDental EnamelOrthodontic BracketsAbstract The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and polymerization protocols on the bond strength of brackets to enamel, and the degree of conversion of the bonding agents. 120 bovine crowns were embedded in acrylic resin blocks and sanded. Next, the blocks were randomly assigned into 12 groups. Metal brackets were bonded to enamel according to the “surface treatment” factor (A: Phosphoric Acid; ATxt: Phosphoric Acid + Transbond XT Primer®; Tse: Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer®; and SBU: Scotchbond Universal®) and “polymerization” factor (R20: Radii-Cal®/20 seconds; V20: Valo Cordless®/20 seconds; and V3: Valo Cordless®/3 seconds). All samples were stored for 6 months (water, 37ºC) and then subjected to a shear bond strength test (SBS). Bond failures were classified according to the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (5%). Using the same factors, 120 resin discs were made to assess the degree of conversion (DC) of the monomer. Data from the SBS (MPa) and DC (%) were analyzed by analysis of variance (2 factors) and Tukey’s test (5%). For the SBS, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 8.1B; V20 = 13.2A; V3 = 5.2C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 3.1C; ATxt = 13.6A; Tse = 12.3A; SBU = 6.3B, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant among groups. The highest adhesion value were found for the ATxt/V20 group (22.2A) and the lowest value for the A/R20 group (1.2E). Regarding ARI, score 2 was the most prevalent in groups A, ATxt, V20 and V3, while score 4 was the most prevalent in the Tse, SBU and R20 groups, with no significant difference between them (p = 1.0). Regarding DC, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 66.6A; V20 = 58.4B; V3 = 45.1C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 52B, ATxt = 59.7A, Tse = 51.4B, SBU = 63.8A, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant. Tse was more sensitive to the variations in polymerization protocols than the other surface treatments. Treatment A did not present suitable bond strength or degree of conversion.Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO2018-01-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100247Brazilian Oral Research v.32 2018reponame:Brazilian Oral Researchinstname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)instacron:SBPQO10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0058info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessSENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira deBARBOSA,Helga Adachi MedeirosCALDAS,Sergei Godeiro Fernandes RabeloOZCAN,MutluSOUZA,Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção eeng2018-06-07T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S1806-83242018000100247Revistahttps://www.scielo.br/j/bor/https://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br1807-31071806-8324opendoar:2018-06-07T00:00Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
title Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
spellingShingle Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
SENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira de
Adhesiveness
Dental Enamel
Orthodontic Brackets
title_short Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
title_full Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
title_fullStr Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
title_full_unstemmed Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
title_sort Effect of different bonding protocols on degree of monomer conversion and bond strength between orthodontic brackets and enamel
author SENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira de
author_facet SENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira de
BARBOSA,Helga Adachi Medeiros
CALDAS,Sergei Godeiro Fernandes Rabelo
OZCAN,Mutlu
SOUZA,Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e
author_role author
author2 BARBOSA,Helga Adachi Medeiros
CALDAS,Sergei Godeiro Fernandes Rabelo
OZCAN,Mutlu
SOUZA,Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv SENA,Lorena Marques Ferreira de
BARBOSA,Helga Adachi Medeiros
CALDAS,Sergei Godeiro Fernandes Rabelo
OZCAN,Mutlu
SOUZA,Rodrigo Othávio de Assunção e
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Adhesiveness
Dental Enamel
Orthodontic Brackets
topic Adhesiveness
Dental Enamel
Orthodontic Brackets
description Abstract The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of different surface treatments and polymerization protocols on the bond strength of brackets to enamel, and the degree of conversion of the bonding agents. 120 bovine crowns were embedded in acrylic resin blocks and sanded. Next, the blocks were randomly assigned into 12 groups. Metal brackets were bonded to enamel according to the “surface treatment” factor (A: Phosphoric Acid; ATxt: Phosphoric Acid + Transbond XT Primer®; Tse: Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer®; and SBU: Scotchbond Universal®) and “polymerization” factor (R20: Radii-Cal®/20 seconds; V20: Valo Cordless®/20 seconds; and V3: Valo Cordless®/3 seconds). All samples were stored for 6 months (water, 37ºC) and then subjected to a shear bond strength test (SBS). Bond failures were classified according to the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) and analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (5%). Using the same factors, 120 resin discs were made to assess the degree of conversion (DC) of the monomer. Data from the SBS (MPa) and DC (%) were analyzed by analysis of variance (2 factors) and Tukey’s test (5%). For the SBS, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 8.1B; V20 = 13.2A; V3 = 5.2C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 3.1C; ATxt = 13.6A; Tse = 12.3A; SBU = 6.3B, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant among groups. The highest adhesion value were found for the ATxt/V20 group (22.2A) and the lowest value for the A/R20 group (1.2E). Regarding ARI, score 2 was the most prevalent in groups A, ATxt, V20 and V3, while score 4 was the most prevalent in the Tse, SBU and R20 groups, with no significant difference between them (p = 1.0). Regarding DC, the factors “polymerization” (R20 = 66.6A; V20 = 58.4B; V3 = 45.1C, p = 0.0001) and “surface treatment” (A = 52B, ATxt = 59.7A, Tse = 51.4B, SBU = 63.8A, p = 0.0001) were statistically significant. Tse was more sensitive to the variations in polymerization protocols than the other surface treatments. Treatment A did not present suitable bond strength or degree of conversion.
publishDate 2018
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2018-01-01
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=S1806-83242018000100247
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1806-83242018000100247
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0058
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 Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica - SBPqO
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research v.32 2018
reponame:Brazilian Oral Research
instname:Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron:SBPQO
instname_str Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
instacron_str SBPQO
institution SBPQO
reponame_str Brazilian Oral Research
collection Brazilian Oral Research
repository.name.fl_str_mv Brazilian Oral Research - Sociedade Brasileira de Pesquisa Odontológica (SBPqO)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv pob@edu.usp.br||bor@sbpqo.org.br
_version_ 1750318325776252928