An in vitro evaluation of the effects of nanoparticles on shear bond strength and antimicrobial properties of orthodontic adhesives: A systematic review and meta-analysis study

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-213 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maryam Pourhajibagher ◽  
Ahmad Sodagar ◽  
Abbas Bahador
Author(s):  
Jennifer Hoppe ◽  
Thomas Lehmann ◽  
Christoph-Ludwig Hennig ◽  
Ulrike Schulze-Späte ◽  
Collin Jacobs

2010 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 138-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zeynep ÖZKURT ◽  
Ender KAZAZOGLU ◽  
Ahmet ÜNAL

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 ◽  
pp. e35
Author(s):  
F.S. Camim ◽  
M. Vertuan ◽  
D.C. Santin ◽  
R.F.L. Mondelli ◽  
L. Wang ◽  
...  

Materials ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (21) ◽  
pp. 6694
Author(s):  
Flavia Iaculli ◽  
Alessandro Salucci ◽  
Gianni Di Giorgio ◽  
Valeria Luzzi ◽  
Gaetano Ierardo ◽  
...  

Background: Conventional composites are largely used in pediatric restorative dentistry and demonstrate successful clinical outcomes. However, the need for simplification of operative steps in young or uncooperative children demands reliable alternatives. Therefore, the aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the in vitro bond strength of glass ionomer cements (GICs) and self-adhesive flowable composites (SFCs) on deciduous teeth. Methods: A comprehensive literature search according to the PRISMA checklist was manually and electronically performed by two independent reviewers through the following databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, and Embase, to include in vitro studies comparing GICs and SFCs bond strength values of restorations on primary teeth. In addition, three groups of meta-analyses were conducted using random-effects models. Results: Three articles meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and subjected to both qualitative and quantitative assessment. No statistically significant difference was found between SFC versus GIC; however, both groups significantly differed with conventional flowable composites (CFs). Conclusions: Despite the absence of significant difference in bond strength values, SFCs may be considered a valid alternative to GICs in the restoration of deciduous teeth, although CFs proved better in vitro performances.


2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 701-706 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rodney G. Northrup ◽  
David W. Berzins ◽  
Thomas Gerard Bradley ◽  
William Schuckit

Abstract Objective: To evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths of two adhesives using two types of brackets: a conventional and a self-ligating bracket system. Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted human premolars were collected. The premolars were randomly divided into three groups of 20 teeth. All three groups were direct bonded. Groups 1 and 2 used light-cured adhesive and primer (Transbond XT) with a conventional (Orthos) and a self-ligating bracket (Damon 2), respectively. Group 3 used a light-cured primer (Orthosolo) and a light-cured adhesive (Blūgloo) with a self-ligating bracket (Damon 2). The specimens were stored in distilled water at 37°C for 40 ± 2 hours, after which they were debonded and inspected for Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scoring. Results: The mean shear bond strength was 15.2 MPa for group 1, 23.2 MPa for group 2, and 24.8 MPa for group 3. A one-way analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test showed significant differences in bond strength (P < .001) between group 1 and groups 2 and 3 but no significant difference (P > .05) between groups 2 and 3. A Weibull analysis demonstrated that all three groups provided sufficient bond strength with over 90% survival rate at normal masticatory and orthodontic force levels. A Kruskal-Wallis test showed no significant difference (P > .05) in ARI scores among all three groups. Conclusions: All three groups demonstrated clinically acceptable bond strength. The Damon 2 self-ligating bracket exhibited satisfactory in vitro bond strength with both adhesive systems used.


2017 ◽  
Vol 27 (7) ◽  
pp. 624-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Cantieri de Mello ◽  
Sandro Basso Bitencourt ◽  
Daniela Micheline dos Santos ◽  
Aldiéris Alves Pesqueira ◽  
Eduardo Piza Pellizzer ◽  
...  

1997 ◽  
Vol 25 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 263-270 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. Willems ◽  
C.E.L. Carels ◽  
G. Verbeke

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document