RESUMO
The following is a clinical case report of a patient whose chief complaint was the presence of generalized spacing in the maxillary anterior segment following orthodontic treatment. After meticulous clinical analyses and discussions of the clinical procedures to be adopted, dental bleaching was performed in both arches with 10% hydrogen peroxide (Opalescence Trèswhite Supreme 10% Hydrogen Peroxide - Ultradent Products, Inc., South Jordan, USA) after the conclusion and stabilization of orthodontic treatment. Then, the orthodontic appliance was removed and the diastemas in the maxillary anterior teeth were closed with Amelogen Plus (Ultradent Products, Inc., South Jordan, USA) resin composite. It was observed that the association of orthodontic, bleaching, and restorative procedures was capable of restoring dental shape, function, and esthetics, allowing the patient to smile without hesitation.
RESUMO
This study aimed to compare in vitro the shear bond strength between metallic brackets (Abzil) with conventional mesh bases and metallic brackets with bases industrially sandblasted with aluminum oxide using three adhesive systems, in order to assess the influence of sandblasting on adhesiveness and to compare 3 different bonding systems. Two hundred and forty bovine incisors were used and randomly divided into 6 groups (40 teeth in each group), according to the bracket base and to the bonding system. The brackets were direct-bonded in bovine teeth with 3 adhesive systems: System A - conventional Transbond XT (3M - Unitek); System B - Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT (3M - Unitek) and System C - Fuji ORTHO LC resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement in capsules (GC Corp.). Shear bond strength tests were performed 24 hours after bonding, in a DL-3000 universal testing machine (EMIC), using a load cell of 200 kgf and a speed of 1 mm/min. The results were submitted to statistical analysis and showed no significant difference between conventional and sandblasted bracket bases. However, comparison between the bonding systems presented significantly different results. System A (14.92 MPa) and system C (13.24 MPa) presented statistically greater shear bond strength when compared to system B (10.66 MPa). There was no statistically significant difference between system A and system C.
Assuntos
Óxido de Alumínio/química , Colagem Dentária , Cimentos Dentários/química , Braquetes Ortodônticos , Resistência ao Cisalhamento , Resinas Acrílicas/química , Adesividade , Silicatos de Alumínio/química , Animais , Bis-Fenol A-Glicidil Metacrilato/química , Bovinos , Colagem Dentária/normas , Cimentos de Ionômeros de Vidro/química , Técnicas In Vitro , Teste de Materiais , Cimentos de Resina/química , Aço Inoxidável/química , Propriedades de Superfície , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
This study aimed to compare in vitro the shear bond strength between metallic brackets (Abzil) with conventional mesh bases and metallic brackets with bases industrially sandblasted with aluminum oxide using three adhesive systems, in order to assess the influence of sandblasting on adhesiveness and to compare 3 different bonding systems. Two hundred and forty bovine incisors were used and randomly divided into 6 groups (40 teeth in each group), according to the bracket base and to the bonding system. The brackets were direct-bonded in bovine teeth with 3 adhesive systems: System A - conventional TransbondTM XT (3M - Unitek); System B - TransbondTM Plus Self Etching Primer + TransbondTM XT (3M - Unitek) and System C - Fuji ORTHO LC resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement in capsules (GC Corp.). Shear bond strength tests were performed 24 hours after bonding, in a DL-3000 universal testing machine (EMIC), using a load cell of 200 kgf and a speed of 1 mm/min. The results were submitted to statistical analysis and showed no significant difference between conventional and sandblasted bracket bases. However, comparison between the bonding systems presented significantly different results. System A (14.92 MPa) and system C (13.24 MPa) presented statistically greater shear bond strength when compared to system B (10.66 MPa). There was no statistically significant difference between system A and system C.
Assuntos
Animais , Bovinos , Óxido de Alumínio/química , Colagem Dentária , Cimentos Dentários/química , Técnicas In Vitro , Braquetes Ortodônticos , Resistência ao Cisalhamento , Adesividade , Resinas Acrílicas/química , Silicatos de Alumínio/química , Bis-Fenol A-Glicidil Metacrilato/química , Colagem Dentária/normas , Cimentos de Ionômeros de Vidro/química , Teste de Materiais , Cimentos de Resina/química , Propriedades de Superfície , Aço Inoxidável/química , Fatores de TempoRESUMO
OBJETIVO: avaliar o Índice de Remanescente Adesivo (IRA) em dentes bovinos após a descolagem de braquetes com e sem tratamento na base. METODOLOGIA: foram utilizados três sistemas de colagem ortodôntica para os dois padrões de base. Os dentes bovinos foram divididos em seis grupos de 40, de acordo com a base do braquete e o sistema de colagem. Vinte e quatro horas após a colagem foram realizados os testes de compressão em uma máquina de ensaios. A avaliação do IRA foi realizada em um estereomicroscópio por três examinadores calibrados. Foi utilizado o teste não paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis, seguido do método de Dunn, para fazer as comparações múltiplas entre todos os grupos. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: observou-se que o tratamento das bases dos braquetes com óxido de alumínio não foi determinante para o aumento da adesividade entre o braquete e o adesivo. O grupo em que se utilizou braquetes com tratamento na base e adesivo TXT (3M-Unitek) + Transbond Plus SEP (3M-Unitek) apresentou a maior parte das fraturas na interface dente-adesivo (escore 4).
AIM: To assess the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) in bovine teeth after debonding mesh bases and sandblasted orthodontic bracket bases. METHODS: Were used three bonding systems for the two standards of base. The bovine teeth were divided into 6 groups of 40, according to the bracket base and to the bonding system. Twenty four hours after bonding they had been carried through shear bond strength tests in a universal testing machine. The assessment of ARI was performed in a stereomicroscopy by three calibrated examiners. It was used the non-parametric Kruskall-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's method, to do the multiple comparisons among all groups. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: It was observed that the aluminum oxide sandblasting bracket bases was not determinative to the increase of the adhesiveness between bracket and adhesive. The group where it was used sandblasted orthodontic bracket bases and bonding system TXT (3M-Unitek) + Transbond Plus SEP (3M-Unitek) presented the majority of the failures at the teeth-adhesive interface (score 4).