Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. This is an update of the Cochrane review first published in 2011. A new full search was conducted on 15 February 2017 but no new studies were identified. We have only updated the search methods section in this new version. The conclusions of this Cochrane review remain the same. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 15 February 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 1) in the Cochrane Library (searched 15 February 2017), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 15 February 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 15 February 2017). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, were included.Trials were also included where:(1) a tube was bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch;(2) molar tubes had been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Development and testing of novel bisphenol A-free adhesives for lingual fixed retainer bonding.

AIM: To comparatively evaluate the properties of two BPA-free experimental adhesives (EXA, EXB) for lingual fixed retainer bonding versus a commercially available reference material (Transbond LR-TLR) based on BPA-compound. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The experimental materials were a flowable 60 per cent glass filler-filled UEDMA/TEGDMA flowable composite (EXB) and a 70 per cent glass filler-filled paste composite with PCDMA/UEDMA/TEGDMA co-monomers. The properties tested were degree of conversion (DC%), mechanical properties (Martens hardness-MH, elastic modulus-EIT, elastic index-nIT), effect of prolonged (6 months) water storage (changes in Vickers microhardness-VHN) and pull-out strength employing a multi-stranded wire. RESULTS: EXB showed the highest DC% (63.6 per cent), followed by EXA (50.5 per cent) and TRL (44.1 per cent), with all means differences being statistically significant (P < 0.05). The statistical rankings of MH (MPa) and EIT (GPa) means were TLR (76.1MPa; 17.3GPa) > EXA (53MPa; 12.9GPa) > EXB (12.9MPa; 6.7GPa), whereas for nIT, EXB (40 per cent) > EXA (34.9 per cent), TLR (33.6 per cent). All materials were affected by prolonged water storage with significant differences among them in VHN. TLR was the most affected material (ΔVHN = -11 per cent), followed by EXA (ΔVHN = -6.8 per cent) and EXB (ΔVHN = -4.2 per cent). No statistically significant differences were found in the pull-out strength testing (24-24.2 N range) and failure mode (70-77 per cent mixed). CONCLUSION: Considering the differences between the two experimental materials, it may be concluded that the material containing the PCDMA/UEDMA/TEGDMA co-monomers may be used as an alternative to the control.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH METHODS: The following electronic databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (searched 2 June 2016), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library (searched 2 June 2016), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 2 June 2016) and EMBASE Ovid (1980 to 2 June 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Evaluation of the bond strengths of 3 endodontic cements via push-out test.

In this study, the push-out method was used to evaluate the bond strengths of 3 types of endodontic cements according to their composite base: methacrylate, epoxy resin, and an experimental copaiba oil resin. The study hypothesis was that the methacrylate-based and experimental cements would have bond strengths equal to or greater than that of the epoxy resin-based cement. Thirty bovine tooth roots, 18 mm long, were divided into 3 groups (n = 10) based on the chosen cement treatment. After treatment, the specimens were sectioned and submitted to a push-out test. Results showed that there was no statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) between the cements used or between the middle and apical thirds of the roots. It could be concluded that the tested cements had satisfactory and similar bond strengths to dentin.

Analysis of metal contents in Portland Type V and MTA-based cements.

The aim of this study was to determine, by Atomic Absorption Spectrometry (AAS), the concentration levels of 11 metals in Type V gray and structural white PC, ProRoot MTA, and MTA Bio. Samples, containing one gram of each tested cement, were prepared and transferred to a 100 mL Teflon tube with a mixture of 7.0 mL of nitric acid and 21 mL of hydrochloric acid. After the reaction, the mixture was filtered and then volumed to 50 mL of distilled water. For each metal, specific patterns were determined from universal standards. Arsenic quantification was performed by hydride generator. The analysis was performed five times and the data were statistically analyzed at 5% level of significance. Only the cadmium presented concentration levels of values lower than the quantification limit of the device. The AAS analysis showed increased levels of calcium, nickel, and zinc in structural white PC. Type V PC presented the greatest concentration levels of arsenic, chromium, copper, iron, lead, and manganese (P < 0.05). Bismuth was found in all cements, and the lowest concentration levels were observed in Portland cements, while the highest were observed in ProRoot MTA. Both PC and MTA-based cements showed evidence of metals inclusion.

Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. The success of a fixed appliance depends partly on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being glued to the teeth so that they do not become detached during treatment. Brackets (metal squares) are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round each tooth) are more commonly used. Orthodontic tubes (stainless steel tubes that allow wires to pass through them), are typically welded to bands but they may also be glued directly (bonded) to molars. Failure of brackets, bands and bonded molar tubes slows down the progress of treatment with a fixed appliance. It can also be costly in terms of clinical time, materials and time lost from education/work for the patient. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes, and the relative effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bonded molar tubes versus adhesives used to attach bands, during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of: (1) how often the tubes (or bands) come off during treatment; and (2) whether they protect the bonded (or banded) teeth against decay. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 16 December 2010), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Clinical Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 16 December 2010) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 16 December 2010). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes, bonded to first or second permanent molars. Trials which compared any type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (stainless steel or titanium) with any other adhesive, are included.Trials are also included where:(1) a tube is bonded to a molar tooth on one side of an arch and a band cemented to the same tooth type on the opposite side of the same arch; (2) molar tubes have been allocated to one tooth type in one patient group and molar bands to the same tooth type in another patient group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: The selection of papers, decision about eligibility and data extraction were carried out independently and in duplicate without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Two trials (n = 190), at low risk of bias, were included in the review and both presented data on first time failure at the tooth level. Pooling of the data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands, with a hazard ratio of 2.92 (95% confidence intervals (CI) 1.80 to 4.72). No statistically significant heterogeneity was shown between the two studies. Data on first time failure at the patient level were also available and showed statistically different difference in favour of molar bands (risk ratio 2.30; 95% CI 1.56 to 3.41) (risk of event for molar tubes = 57%; risk of event for molar bands 25%).One trial presented data on decalcification again showing a statistically significant difference in favour of molar bands. No other adverse events identified. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: From the two well-designed and low risk of bias trials included in this review it was shown that the failure of molar tubes bonded with either a chemically-cured or light-cured adhesive was considerably higher than that of molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement. One trial indicated that there was less decalcification with molar bands cemented with glass ionomer cement than with bonded molar tubes cemented with a light-cured adhesive. However, given there are limited data for this outcome, further evidence is required to draw more robust conclusions.

Effect of a simulated high-heat environment on bond strengths of dental adhesive systems.

OBJECTIVE: The goal was to evaluate the effect of high-heat storage of three dental adhesive bonding agents on the bond strength of composite resin to dentin. METHODS: Three different adhesive bonding agents were stored for 1 month at the manufacturers' recommended temperatures and simultaneously at high temperatures (43 degrees C). The adhesives and a composite resin restorative material were bonded to the dentinal surface of five sectioned, extracted, human teeth for each of the six groups. The teeth were further sectioned into four beams per tooth (N=20) and separated with a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance/Tukey's test and Student's t test. RESULTS: One of the three bonding agents had significantly lower bond strength when stored in a high-heat environment (p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: High-heat storage conditions, as may occur in areas of deployment in Southwest Asia, may cause a reduction in the performance of some dental adhesives, potentially leading to premature failure of the restoration.

[Comparison of flow conditions of adhesives and retention force of restorations among four cement-retained methods of implant-supported fixed prostheses].

Objective: To compare the effect on the flow conditions of adhesives and the retention force of restorations among different cement-retained methods of implant-supported fixed prostheses. Methods: Four common cement-retained methods were selected, including the occlusal hole for screw access (OH), the lingual hole for adhesives overflow (LH), the resin replica for titanium abutment (RR), and the traditional cement-retained method (the control group). The adhesive used in this study was resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The two-dimensional analysis models of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) were established. The flow conditions of adhesives in the adhesion process was analyzed by the CFD analysis. The internal filling ratio and the amount of neck overflow of adhesives below the edge of the prosthesis were calculated. Ten zirconia prostheses in each group were processed and cemented. The retention force was examined by mechanical tensile experiments in vitro. Results: The CFD analysis showed the internal filling ratio of adhesives from high to low was the LH group, the OH group, the RR group and the control group. The amount of neck overflow of adhesives below the edge of the prosthesis from less to more was the RR group, the OH group, the LH group and the control group. The retention force was (240.7±33.9) N in the control group, (278.2±59.1) N in the OH group, (292.9±47.9) N in the LH group, and (262.8±59.4) N in the RR group. There was a statistically significant difference in the retention force between the LH group and the control group (P=0.029). There was no significant difference among the other groups (P>0.05). Conclusions: The modified cement-retained methods can effectively reduce the amount of neck overflow of adhesives, and improve the filling condition of adhesive in the adhesive clearance to ensure the retention force of the prostheses. Clinically, the appropriate modified cement-retained method should be selected according to the three-dimensional position of the implant and the position of prosthetic margin.

OCT for early quality evaluation of tooth-composite bond in clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate early quality of composite restorations with a universal adhesive in different application modes clinically and with optical coherence tomography (OCT). METHODS: 22 patients with four non-carious cervical lesions each received composite restorations (Filtek Supreme™ XTE, 3 M). The universal adhesive Scotchbond Universal™(SBU, 3 M) was applied with three etching protocols: self-etch (SE), selective-enamel-etch (SEE) and etch-and-rinse (ER). The etch-and-rinse adhesive OptiBond™ FL (OFL, Kerr) served as a control. Restorations were imaged by OCT (Thorlabs) directly after application (t0). After 14 days (t1) and 6 month (t2) OCT imaging (interfacial adhesive defects) was repeated combined with clinical assessment (FDI criteria). Groups were compared by Friedman-/Wilcoxon- and McNemar-Test. RESULTS: No differences were seen clinically between groups (pi ≥ 0.500). OCT assessment revealed more adhesive defects at the enamel interface with SBU/SE at t0-t2 compared to all groups (pi ≤ 0.016). OFL showed more defects than SBU/ER (t1: p = 0.01; t2: p = 0.083). At dentin/cementum interface OFL exhibited more adhesive defects than SBU with all conditioning modes (t0, t1, pi ≤ 0.003) and at t2 to SBU/SE and SBU/ER (p < 0.001). Since t1 defects with SBU were detected more frequently in the SE and SEE modes compared to ER (pi ≤ 0.037). In contrast to SBU defects increased with OFL up to t2 (pi ≤ 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: In contrast to clinical evaluation, OCT revealed subtle adhesive defects directly after application that might interfere with clinical success. It was demonstrated that ER does not decrease initial adhesion of SBU to dentin.

[Correspondence between advances of dental composites and adhesives and clinical guidelines for direct restorations].

The longevity of direct adhesive restoration is related to the restorative materials, the patient and the professional. On one hand, dental composites/adhesives have been modified and developed to fulfill the criteria for clinical application. On the other hand, the clinical guidelines for adhesive restorations have been released and updated accordingly, which would prolong the longevity of restorations. In this commentary, the removal of carious tissues, interface preparation for bonding and application of adhesives are emphasized. The administrative measures for registration and clinical evaluation criteria for adhesive restorative material are also introduced.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (29th January 2007), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2007, Issue 1), MEDLINE (1966 to 29th January 2007) and EMBASE (1980 to 29th January 2007). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

Mechanical properties of contemporary orthodontic adhesives used for lingual fixed retention.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to test the mechanical properties of different adhesives used in orthodontics for fixed retainers and to investigate their possible interrelations. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Specimens of six different adhesive resins were prepared: Transbond XT, Transbond LR and an experimental BPA-free orthodontic adhesive, as well as IPS Empress Direct (IPS-ED), ZNano and Accolade. The mechanical properties tested were Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), the ratio of elastic to total work, commonly known as elastic index (ηIT) and Vickers hardness (HV). These properties were determined using instrumented indentation testing according to ISO 14577-2002. The results of the aforementioned properties were statistically compared with one-way ANOVA-test and Student-Newman-Keuls multiple comparison test at a=0.05, while possible correlations among the properties tested were analyzed by Pearson correlation. RESULTS: Significant differences were identified among all the materials tested for HM, with Transbond LR presenting the highest value. This resin presented the highest EIT too. Significant EIT differences were identified among the materials and only ZNano and IPS-ED showed no significant differences for this property. Transbond LR and ZNano showed higher HV values. ZNano demonstrated the highest elastic index. Pearson analysis showed a strong positive correlation between HM and EIT (0.970), HM and HV (0.837), and EIT and HV (0.695), while a weak negative correlation was found between EIT and elastic index (-0.505). CONCLUSIONS: The materials tested demonstrated significant differences in their mechanical properties, and thus differences in their clinical performance are anticipated.

Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands.

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (dental braces) to correct the positions of teeth. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed appliances is much better than with removable appliances. Fixed appliances are, therefore, favoured by most orthodontists for treatment. The success of a fixed orthodontic appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being attached securely to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to the front and side teeth, whereas bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used on the back teeth (molars). A number of adhesives are available to attach bands to teeth and it is important to understand which group of adhesives bond most reliably, as well as reducing or preventing dental decay during the treatment period. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness of the adhesives used to attach bands to teeth during fixed appliance treatment, in terms of:(1) how often the bands come off during treatment; and(2) whether they protect the banded teeth against decay during fixed appliance treatment. SEARCH STRATEGY: Electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (July 2005), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2005), MEDLINE (1966 to July 2005) and EMBASE (1980 to July 2005). A search of the internet was also undertaken. There was no restriction with regard to publication status or language of publication. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised and controlled clinical trials (RCTs and CCTs) (including split-mouth studies) of adhesives used to attach orthodontic bands to molar teeth were selected. Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) who had bands attached to molars were included. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: All review authors were involved in study selection, validity assessment and data extraction without blinding to the authors, adhesives used or results obtained. All disagreements were resolved by discussion. MAIN RESULTS: Five RCTs and three CCTs were identified as meeting the review's inclusion criteria. All the included trials were of split-mouth design. Four trials compared chemically cured zinc phosphate and chemically cured glass ionomer; three trials compared chemically cured glass ionomer cement with light cured compomer; one trial compared chemically cured glass ionomer with a chemically cured glass phosphonate. Data analysis was often inappropriate within the studies meeting the inclusion criteria. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient high quality evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth. Further RCTs are required.

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets.

INTRODUCTION:: There is a great variety of orthodontic brackets in the Brazilian market, and constantly evaluating them is critical for professionals to know their properties, so as to be able to choose which product best suits their clinical practice. OBJECTIVES:: To evaluate the bond strength and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different brands of metal brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS:: A total of 105 bovine incisors were used, and brackets of different brands were bonded to teeth. Seven different bracket brands were tested (MorelliTM, American OrthodonticsTM, TP OrthodonticsTM, Abzil-3MTM, OrthometricTM, TecnidentTM and UNIDENTM). Twenty-four hours after bonding, shear bond strength test was performed; and after debonding, the ARI was determined by using an optical microscope at a 10-fold increase. RESULTS:: Mean shear bond strength values ranged from 3.845 ± 3.997 (MorelliTM) to 9.871 ± 5.106 MPa (TecnidentTM). The majority of the ARI index scores was 0 and 1. CONCLUSION:: Among the evaluated brackets, the one with the lowest mean shear bond strength values was MorelliTM. General evaluation of groups indicated that a greater number of bond failure occurred at the enamel/adhesive interface.

Elemental distributions and microtensile bond strength of the adhesive interface to normal and caries-affected dentin.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (microTBS) and the elemental contents of the adhesive interface created to normal versus caries-affected dentin. Extracted human molars with coronal carious lesions were used in this study. A self-etching primer/adhesive system (Clearfil Protect Bond) was applied to flat dentin surfaces with normal and caries-affected dentin according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 h water storage, the bonded specimens were cross-sectioned and subjected to a microTBS test and electron probe microanalysis for the elemental distributions [calcium (Ca), phosphorus (P), magnesium (Mg), and nitrogen (N)] of the resin-dentin interface after gold sputter-coating. The microTBS to caries-affected dentin was lower than that of normal dentin. The demineralized zone of the caries-affected dentin-resin interface was thicker than that of normal dentin (approximately 3 microm thick in normal dentin; 8 microm thick in caries-affected dentin), and Ca and P in both types of dentin gradually increased from the interface to the underlying dentin. The caries-affected dentin had lost most of its Mg content. The distributions of the minerals, Ca, P, and Mg, at the adhesive interface to caries-affected dentin were different from normal dentin. Moreover, a N peak, which was considered to be the collagen-rich zone resulting from incomplete resin infiltration of exposed collagen, was observed to be thicker within the demineralized zone of caries-affected dentin compared with normal dentin.

Tensile bond strength of different universal adhesive systems to lithium disilicate ceramic.

BACKGROUND: Today, many adhesive systems with different coupling agents for tooth structures and restorative materials are available. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the tensile bond strength (TBS) of different universal adhesive systems to etched lithium disilicate ceramic. METHODS: The authors etched and bonded 96 disk-like lithium disilicate ceramic specimens (IPS e.max CAD, Ivoclar Vivadent) with 4 different adhesive bonding systems to Plexiglas tubes filled with a composite resin. The authors stored the specimens in water at 37°C for 3 days without thermal cycling or for 30 or 150 days with 7,500 or 37,500 thermal cycles between 5°C and 55°C, respectively. Then, all specimens underwent TBS testing. The authors performed statistical analysis by using Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests with a Bonferroni-Holm correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: Initially, all adhesive systems exhibited considerable TBS, but some showed a significant reduction after 30 days of storage. After 3, 30, and 150 days, the Monobond Plus and Multilink Automix (Ivoclar Vivadent) silane-containing adhesive system showed significantly higher bond strengths to lithium disilicate ceramic than did the other universal adhesive systems, some of which do not contain silanes. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strength to lithium disilicate ceramic is affected significantly by the adhesive bonding system used. PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS: Universal adhesive systems that do not contain a silane should be avoided for bonding lithium disilicate ceramic restorations because of their inferior bond strength.

Dental students' ability to assess their performance in a preclinical restorative course: comparison of students' and faculty members' assessments.

Dental education consists of both theoretical and practical learning for students to develop competence in treating patients clinically. When dental students encounter practical courses in their first year as a new educational experience, they must also learn to evaluate themselves. Self-evaluation is an essential skill to learn for dental professionals to keep increasing their competence over the course of their careers. The aim of this study was to compare the assessment scores of second- and third-year dental students and the faculty in two consecutive preclinical practical exams in restorative dentistry courses in a dental school in Turkey. Faculty- and student-assigned scores were calculated from two consecutive preclinical examinations on tooth restorations performed on both artificial casts and phantom patients. The students were formally instructed on grading procedures for tooth preparations, base and restoration placement, and polishing criteria. After each step, each item was assessed by faculty members, the student, and another student. The results indicated that the initial differences between second-year students' assessments of their own preclinical practical ability and that of the faculty decreased among the third-year students. Self-evaluation scores did not indicate whether the third-year students tended to over- or underestimate the quality of their own work. However, the second-year students not only overestimated themselves but thought they were above average. The results point to the need to develop students' self-insight with more exercises and practical training.