You are here

Home » Content

IŞIKLA SERTLEŞEN FARKLI ORTODONTİK YAPIŞTIRICILARIN BAĞLANMA DİRENÇLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

COMPARISON OF SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF DIFFERENT LIGHT CURE ORTHODONTICS ADHESIVES

Journal Name:

  • Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 2009

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aims of the current study were to evaluate and compare bond strength of two conventional light -cure adhesives and one reinforced glass ionomer cement. Thirty extracted human premolars were randomly divided into 3 groups. Premolar brackets were bonded to the tooth specimens in each group with their respective adhesive according to the manufacturer's instructions. All specimens were stored in distilled water in sealed containers and placed in an incubator at 37° C for 24 hours before shear bond strengths were tested. Analysis of variance was used to compare the three adhesives. A One-way analysis of variance and Tukey multiple comparison test were used to determine statistical significance differences between groups. The present findings indicated that the mean bond strength of two light cure adhesives ranged between 15.21 and 16.39 MPa while mean bond strength of reinforced glass ionomer cement was 7.16 MPa. The results of variance analysis showed that there were statistical significant differences in the bond strength among the 3 groups. Tukey multiple comparison test indicated that these differences took root from reinforced glass ionomer cement which has the weakest bond strength in our study. It was concluded that adhesives tested in this study would be adequate for routine clinical use.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki adet ışıkla sertleşen adeziv ve bir adet güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer simanın bağlanma dirençlerinin belirlenmesi ve birbirleriyle karşılaştırılmasıdır. 30 adet çekilmiş insan küçük azı dişi rastgele 3 gruba ayrılmış ve küçük azı braketleri üretici firmaların kullanma talimatlarına göre çekilen dişlere yapıştırılmıştır. Tüm örnekler sıyrılma dirençleri test edilmeden 24 saat önce 37 derecelik distile suda bekletilmiştir. İstatistiksel değerlendirme için One-way ANOVA varyans analizi ve Tukey çoklu karşılaştırma testi kullanılmıştır. Işıkla sertleşen iki adet adezivin ortalama bağlanma dirençleri 15.21 ile 16.39 MPa iken güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer simanın bağlanma direnci 7.16 MPa olarak bulunmuştur. Vayans analizi sonuçları 3 grup adezivin bağlanma dirençleri arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli farklılık olduğunu göstermiştir. Tukey çoklu karşılaştırma testi farklılıkların en zayıf bağlanma direncine sahip olan güçlendirilmiş cam iyonomer simandan kaynaklandığını göstermiştir. Bu çalışmada kullanılan adezivlerin rutin klinik kullanım için yeterli olduğu sonucuna varılmıştır.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-isikla-sertlesen-farkli-ortodontik-yapistiricilarin-baglanma-direnclerinin-karsilastirilmasi.pdf
  • 2
85-89
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Buonocore, MG. A Simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. Dent Res 1955; 34:849-53.
2. Newman, G. V. Snyder, WH, Wilson, CW. Acrylic adhesives for bonding attachments to tooth surfaces. Angle Orthod 1968; 38:12-18.
3. Retief DH, Dreyer CJ, Gavron G. The direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth by means of an epoxy resin adhesive. Am J Orthod 1970; 58:21-40.
4. Cueto HI. A little bit of history; the first direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1990; 98:276-77.
5 Mitchell DL.The first direct bonding in orthodontia, revisited. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;
101:187-89.
6. Newman GV. First direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 101:190-91.
7. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of a new light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;
114:80-87.
8. Brown CRL, Way DC. Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J
Orthod 1978; 74:663-71.
9. Rouleau BD, Marshall GW, Cooly RO. Enamel surface evaluations after clinical treatment and removal of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1982; 81:423-426.
10. Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: A study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981; 79:500-22.
88
Atatürk Üniv. Diş Hek. Fak. Derg.
Cilt: 19, Sayı: 2, Yıl: 2009, Sayfa: 85-89
HALICIOĞLU, YILMAZ, YAVUZ
11. Brannström M, Malmgren O, Nordevall KJ. Etching of young permanent teeth with an acid gel. Am J Orthod 1982; 82:379-83.
12. Ogaard B, Rolla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1988; 94:68-73.
13. Gorelick L. Bonding metal brackets with self-polymerizing seakent composite: a 12 month assessment. Am J Orthod 1977; 71:542-53.
14. Tavas A, Watts DC. Banding of orthodontic brackets by transilluminatian of a light activated composite: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1979;
6:207-08.
15. Wilson AD, Kent BE. A new translucent cement for dentistry. Brit Dent J 1972; 132:133-35.
16. White LW. Glass ionomer cement. J Clin Orthod
1986; 20:387-91
17. Itoh T, Matsuo N, Fukushima T, Inoue Y, Oniki Y, Matsumoto M, et al. Effect of contamination and etching on enamel bond strength of new light-cured glass ionomer cements. Angle Orthod 1999; 69:450¬56.
18. Cook PA. Direct bonding with glass ionomer cement. J Clin Orthod 1990; 24:509-11.
19. Fajen VB, Duncanson MG, Nanda RS, Currier GF, Angolker PV. An in vitro evaluation of bond strength of three glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97:316-22.
20. Wiltshire WA. Shear bond strength of a glass ionomer for bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994; 106:127-30.
21. Rock WP, Abdullah MSB. Shear bond strengths produced by composite and compomer light cured orthodontic adhesives. J Dent 1997; 25:243-49.
22. Chung CH, Friedman SD, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;
122:282-87.
23. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994; 21: 33-43.
24. Arici S, Arici N. Effects of thermocycling on the bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement: an in vitro comparative study. Angle
Orthod. 2003; 73:692-96.
25.Silverman E, Cohen M, Demke RS, Silverman MA. New light-cured glass ionomer cement that bonds brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;
108:231-36.
26. Movahhed HS, 0gaard B, Syverud M. An ın vitro comparision of the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and a composite adhesive for bonding orthodontics brackets. European J Orthod 2005; 27:477-83.
27. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI Effect of self-etching primers on bond strength - are they reliable? Angle Orthod 2003; 73:64-70.
28. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen J R. Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer and acidic primer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999; 115:24-28.
29. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;
51:901-12
30. Wheeler JJ, Ackerman RJ. Bond strength of thermally recycled metal brackets. Am J Orthod
1983; 88:181-86.
31. Reynolds IR, Von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1976; 3:91-95.
32. Lopez JI. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod 1980; 77:669-78.
33. Keizer S, Ten Cate JM, Arends J. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod 1976; 69:318¬27.
34. Maijer R, Smith DC. A new surface treatment for bonding. Journal of Biomedical Materials Research
1979; 13: 975-85.

Thank you for copying data from http://www.arastirmax.com