scholarly journals EVALUATION OF ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVE COLOR REFLECTION DEGREES OF TRANSPARENT AND TRANSLUCENT CERAMIC BRACKETS

Author(s):  
Göksu TRAKYALI
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Aline Rosa Galavotti Viana ◽  
Diego Patrik Alves Carneiro ◽  
Pricila Alves Carneiro ◽  
Américo Bortolazzo Correr ◽  
Silvia Amélia Scudeler Vedovello ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Selma Elekdag-Türk ◽  
Hüdanur Yilmaz (née Huda Ebulkbash)
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Keith ◽  
S. P. Jones ◽  
E. H. Davies

Planar static frictional phenomena were investigated for two types of ceramic and one type of stainless steel orthodontic bracket against rectangular stainless steel archwire. The brackets studied were ‘Starfire’ (single crystal aluminium oxide), ‘Allure III’ (polycrystalline aluminium oxide), and ‘Dentaurum’ (stainless steel). The investigative parameters were: bracket material, force of ligation and whether the brackets were new or ‘worn’. Without exception, both types of ceramic bracket produced greater frictional resistance than the stainless steel brackets throughout testing. At a ligation force of 500 g, the Starfire bracket gave the greatest frictional resistance. At ligation forces of 200 and 50 g, the greatest frictional resistance was seen with Allure III. After a period of simulated wear, frictional resistance of Starfire tended to increase at the greatest ligation load while that of both ceramics decreased slightly at the two lower ligation loads. The ceramic brackets caused abrasive wear of the archwire surfaces and the consequent wear debris may have contributed to the changes in frictional resistance seen with Starfire and Allure III. Dentaurm brackets produced minimal frictional resistance in any test and negligible change with wear.


2015 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 32-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bruna Coser Guignone ◽  
Ludimila Karsbergen Silva ◽  
Rodrigo Villamarim Soares ◽  
Emilio Akaki ◽  
Marcelo Coelho Goiato ◽  
...  

OBJECTIVE: To assess the color stability of five types of ceramic brackets after immersion in potentially staining solutions.METHODS: Ninety brackets were divided into 5 groups (n = 18) according to brackets commercial brands and the solutions in which they were immersed (coffee, red wine, coke and artificial saliva). The brackets assessed were Transcend (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), Radiance (American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI, USA), Mystique (GAC International Inc., Bohemia, NY, USA) and Luxi II (Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, CO, USA). Chromatic changes were analyzed with the aid of a reflectance spectrophotometer and by visual inspection at five specific time intervals. Assessment periods were as received from the manufacturer (T0), 24 hours (T1), 72 hours (T2), as well as 7 days (T3) and 14 days (T4) of immersion in the aforementioned solutions. Results were submitted to statistical analysis with ANOVA and Bonferroni correction, as well as to a multivariate profile analysis for independent and paired samples with significance level set at 5%.RESULTS: The duration of the immersion period influenced color alteration of all tested brackets, even though these changes could not always be visually observed. Different behaviors were observed for each immersion solution; however, brackets immersed in one solution progressed similarly despite minor variations.CONCLUSIONS: Staining became more intense over time and all brackets underwent color alterations when immersed in the aforementioned solutions.


2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1028-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neslihan Arhun ◽  
Ayca Arman ◽  
Sevi Burçak Çehreli ◽  
Serdar Arıkan ◽  
Erdem Karabulut ◽  
...  

Abstract Objective: To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 = Transbond XT + metal bracket, group 2 = Transbond XT + ceramic bracket, group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond + ceramic bracket, and group 4 = Clearfil Protect Bond + metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesive-tooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A significant difference was observed among all groups (P < .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited significantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearfil Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive. Conclusions: Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions.


1997 ◽  
Vol 111 (2) ◽  
pp. 163-172 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marguerite Crooks ◽  
James Hood ◽  
Michael Harkness

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document