Comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a compomer concerning bonded acrylic expander retention and white spot formation : A randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The goal of the present study was to compare a compomer and a glass ionomer cement (GIC) used for full the cementation of acrylic splint-type maxillary expanders with respect to failure rate and white spot lesions (WSLs) in vivo. METHODS: A total of 120 patients with posterior crossbite and transverse maxillary deficiency were included to the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: GIC group (n = 60) and compomer group (n = 60). The hyrax screw in both groups was activated two times a day for the first week then once a day until the desired amount of expansion was achieved. The rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance was left in the mouth for an extra month after the active expansion phase as a retention appliance. Then cementation failures were recorded. In addition, the patients were evaluated for white spot lesions (WSLs) before cementation and after removal of the appliance. RESULTS: A total of 12 (20%) and 2 (3.3%) RME devices failed in the GIC and the compomer group, respectively. This difference between groups was statistically significant (p = 0.044). There were also statistically significant differences between the GIC and compomer groups in terms of WSLs on the central (p = 0.06) and lateral (p = 0.011) incisors, and on the first molar (0.028). However, no differences were observed for the canines (p = 0.185), first (p = 0.457) and second premolars (p = 0.116). In total, there was a statistically significant difference between the GIC and compomer groups (p = 0.048), with more WSLs in the GIC group. CONCLUSIONS: Among the products used in the study, the compomer should be preferred over the GIC for cementation of acrylic splint-type rapid maxillary expanders in terms of failure rate and WSLs.

Approaches of Turkish Dentists in Cases of Orthodontic Lingual Retainer Failures.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the approaches of Turkish dentists in cases of orthodontic lingual retainer failures. METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire was used to quantify dentists' approaches to lingual retainer failures. The first part of the study investigated the demographic characteristics. In the second part, dentists' approaches to cases of failed retainers were assessed. The third part had questions related to the type of retainers bonded solely to the canines or to all the 6 anterior teeth. Descriptive statistics were done with Pearson's χ2 test, and Mann-Whitney U test was used. RESULTS: A total of 320 Turkish dentists participated in the survey. Experienced and public dentists preferred to advise the patients whose retainers had failed to contact their orthodontist more frequently (p<0.05). Regarding their approach to patients who requested removal of the bonded retainer, inexperienced dentists more frequently preferred to refer the patients to an orthodontist (p<0.05). With regard to factors affecting the choice to remove a bonded retainer, the most and the least importance were attributed to the orthodontist's opinion and the patient's demand, respectively. CONCLUSION: Turkish dentists prefer referring their patients to orthodontists rather than performing procedures in cases of failure associated with bonded retainers. Different demographic characteristics seem to have an impact on these approaches.