The Omission of Pumice Prophylaxis on Bracket Failure Rates Using Self Etch Primers

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rates ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Bracket Failure

scholarly journals A Self-Conditioner for Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers in Bonding Orthodontic Brackets

2007 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 711-715 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir E. Bishara ◽  
Adam W. Ostby ◽  
John Laffoon ◽  
John J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Polyacrylic Acid ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Shear Mode ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Bracket Failure

Abstract Objective: To evaluate a new self-etch conditioner used with resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) in bonding orthodontic brackets. Materials and Methods: Sixty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into three groups. In group 1 (control), 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer; in group 2, 20 brackets were bonded using an RMGI with a 10% polyacrylic acid conditioner. In group 3, 20 brackets were bonded using Fuji Ortho LC with a new no-rinse self-conditioner for RMGIs. The same bracket type was used on all groups. The teeth were debonded in shear mode using a universal testing machine, and the amount of residual adhesive remaining on each tooth was evaluated. Analysis of variance was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS), and the χ2 test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. Results: There were no significant differences in the SBS (P = .556) between the groups. The mean SBS for Transbond Plus was 8.6 ± 2.6 MPa, for Fuji Ortho LC using 10% polyacrylic acid 9.1 ± 4.6 MPa, and for Fuji Ortho LC using GC Self-conditioner 9.9 ± 4.1 MPa. The comparisons of the ARI scores between the three groups (χ2 = 35.5) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P < .001), with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded using Transbond. Conclusions: The new self-etch conditioner can be used with an RMGI to successfully bond brackets. In addition, brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC resulted in less residual adhesive remaining on the teeth.

scholarly journals A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Grünheid ◽  
Brent E. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Removal Time ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Adhesive Removal ◽  
First Time ◽  
Bracket Failure

ABSTRACT Objectives: To compare bracket survival and adhesive removal time between a flash-free and a conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding. Materials and Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients had their maxillary incisors, canines, and premolars bonded with ceramic brackets using a flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) on one side and a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive, 3M Unitek) on the other side. The side allocation was randomized. Bracket failure was recorded at 4-week intervals. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored on debond and adhesive removal timed to the nearest second. The primary outcome was adhesive removal time per quadrant. Secondary outcomes were bracket failure rate, time to first-time failure of a bracket, and ARI score on debond. Paired t-tests were used to compare adhesive removal times and ARI scores between the adhesives with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Results: Bracket failure rates were 4.3% for the flash-free adhesive and 1.9% for the conventional adhesive, with mean times to first-time failure of 31 weeks for the flash-free adhesive and 42 weeks for the conventional adhesive; neither failure rates nor times to first failure were significantly different. Although the flash-free adhesive left significantly more adhesive on the tooth surface after debonding, the adhesive removal times were 22.2% shorter than with the conventional adhesive. Conclusions: Bracket survival with the flash-free adhesive was equivalent to the conventional adhesive when ceramic brackets were bonded. Adhesive removal was significantly faster when using the flash-free adhesive, which may result in time savings of more than 20% compared with the conventional adhesive.

scholarly journals A New Premixed Self-Etch Adhesive for Bonding Orthodontic Brackets

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1101-1104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir E. Bishara ◽  
Adam W. Otsby ◽  
Raed Ajlouni ◽  
John Laffoon ◽  
John J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Testing Machine ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Chi Square ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Chi Square Test ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Self Etch ◽  
Bracket Failure ◽  
Student’S T Test

Abstract Objective: To determine if a new premixed self-etch adhesive can be used to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel. Materials and Methods: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, 20 teeth were conditioned using the self-etching primer Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). In group 2, 20 teeth were conditioned using a new premixed self-etching adhesive, AdheSE One (Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Amherst, NY). Both groups were bonded using brackets precoated with a composite adhesive. The teeth were debonded within half an hour following initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the enamel surface was examined under 10× magnifications to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. A Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the Chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems. Results: The mean SBS of the brackets bonded to the teeth using AdhesSE One was 3.6 ± 1.3 MPa and was significantly lower (t = 2.80, P = .01) than the SBS of the brackets bonded using Transbond Plus (x̄ = 5.9 ± 3.2 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (χ2 = 19.26) indicated that bracket failure mode was also significantly different (P < .001), with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded using Transbond Plus. Conclusions: The SBS of the new premixed self-etching adhesive needs to be increased for it to be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets.

scholarly journals Early failures when using three different adhesively retained core build-up materials—a randomized controlled trial

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andreas Zenthöfer ◽  
Justo Lorenzo Bermejo ◽  
Wolfgang Bömicke ◽  
Cornelia Frese ◽  
Rumeysa Gülmez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Risk Factors ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trial ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
Dental Students ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Fixed Dental Prosthesis ◽  
Failure Risk ◽  
Self Etch

Abstract Objectives To compare the failure rates for three different adhesively retained core build-up composites up to the incorporation of a permanent fixed dental prosthesis (FDP), and to identify potential failure risk factors. Material and methods A randomized controlled trial of 300 participants in need of a core build-up to restore a vital abutment tooth before prosthetic treatment was conducted. Participants were assigned by stratified block randomization to one of three study groups: Rebilda DC (RDC), Clearfil DC Core (CDC), or Multicore Flow (MF). Test teeth were prepared by use of the respective manufacturer’s adhesive system. The total-etch technique was used for RDC and MF, and the self-etch technique for CDC. Participants were treated by dentists (n = 150) or dental students (n = 150). Failure rates of core build-ups before incorporation of FDPs were investigated using univariate and multiple logistic regression. Results The overall failure rate was 8% (n = 23). Rate differences between the three investigated groups did not reach statistical significance (p > 0.05). The mean time between placement of core build-ups and placement of fixed dental prostheses was 12.2 (SD: 14.2) weeks. Conversely, larger cavities (> 3 surfaces) and treatment by dental students were independently associated with an increased failure risk (p < 0.05). Conclusions The main risk factors for early failure seem to be the size of the core build-up and clinical experience of the operator, whereas failure rates of core build-up materials combined with a self-etch approach seem to be similar to the rates of materials combined with the total-etch technique. Clinical significance This research article should give clinicians an impression of the short-term performance of different adhesively retained core build-ups using different adhesive techniques/materials. Moreover, predominant influencing factors for the success or failure should be pictured.

scholarly journals Clinical effect of reducing curing times with high-intensity LED lights

2015 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 1064-1069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin D. Ward ◽  
Bethany J. Wolf ◽  
Luis P. Leite ◽  
Jing Zhou
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Curing Time ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Led Light ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Curing Methods ◽  
Bracket Failure

ABSTRACT Objective:  To evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with a high-intensity, light-emitting diode (LED) with a shorter curing time. Materials and Methods:  Thirty-four patients and a total of 680 brackets were examined using a randomized split-mouth design. The maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were cured for 6 seconds with a high-intensity LED light (3200 mW/cm2) and the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured for 20 seconds with a standard-intensity LED light (1200 mW/cm2). Alternating patients had the quadrants inverted for the curing protocol. The number and date of each first-time bracket failure was recorded from 199 to 585 days posttreatment. Results:  The bracket failure rate was 1.18% for both curing methods. The proportion of bracket failure was not significantly different between curing methods (P  =  1.000), genders (P  =  1.000), jaws (P  =  .725), sides (P  =  .725), or quadrants (P  =  .547). Posterior teeth exhibited a greater proportion of failures (2.21%) relative to anterior teeth (0.49%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P  =  .065). Conclusions:  No difference was found in bond failure rates between the two curing methods. Both methods showed bond failure rates low enough to be considered clinically sufficient. The high-intensity LED light used with a shorter curing time may be considered an advantage due to the reduced chair time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document