Buradasınız

Anasayfa » Content

FARKLI BRAKET KAİDE TİPLERİ İLE YAPIŞTIRICILARIN KOPMA SIKLIKLARININ İN VİVO OLARAK İNCELENMESİ

ANIN VTVO EVALUATION OF THE FREQUENCY OF BOND FAILURES OF DIFFERENT BRACKET BASES AND BONDING MATERIALS

Journal Name:

  • İstanbul Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

Publication Year:

  • 1995

Key Words:

Keywords (Original Language):

Author NameUniversity of AuthorFaculty of Author
Abstract (2. Language): 
The aim of this in vivo study ivas to evaluate the frequency oj bond failures of the foil-mesh base (Mini-Mono Brackets) and the cast integral base (Edgeway Brackets) that were bonded ushiga no-mix composite resin (Right-On), a fluoride-containing no-mix composite resin (Direct), a visible light cured resin (Heliosit-Orthodontic) and a glass iono-tner cement (Ketac-Cem) for a period of 3 months. A total oj 512 brackets were bonded on 32 patients and, the failure rates were evaluated separately for each bracket base, each bonding material and each bracket/bonding material combination. The statistically significant results of this in vivo study were as follows; there was no statistically significant difference between the failure rates of Mini-Mono ( % 14.4) and Edgeway (% 12.1) brackets. Right-On has a significantly lowest failure rate (% 2.3) than Direct (% 29.6), Heliosit-Orthodontic (% 8.5) and Ketac-Cem (% 12.5). None of the Edgeway brackets that were bonded using Right-On failed during the study period.
Bookmark/Search this post with
Abstract (Original Language): 
Bu in vivo çalışmanın amacı, bir no-mix yapıştırıcı olan Right-On, fluorid içeren no-mix yapıştırıcı olan Direct, ışıkla polimerize olan Heliosit-Orthodontic ve cam io-nomer simam olan Ketac-Cem ile yapıştırılan kafes örgü kaideli Mini-Mono ve döküm integral kaideli Edge-way braketlerinin kopma sıklıklarının 3 ay süre ile incelenmesidir. Bu çalışmada 32 hastada, toplanı 512 adet braket yapıştırılmış olup, her bir braket kaidesinin, her bir yapıştırıcının ve her bir braket/yapıştırıcı kombinasyonunun kopma oram ayn ayrı uıcelenmiştir. Bu in vivo çalışmanın istatistiksel olarak önemli bulunan sonuçlan şunlardır; Mini-Mono (% 14.4) ve Edgeway (% 12.1) braketlerinin kopma sıklıkları arasında İstatistiksel olarak önemli bir fark bulunmamıştır. Right-On'un kopma oram (% 2.3), Direct (% 29.6), Heliosit-Orthodontic (% 8.5) ve Ketac-Cem'den (% 12.5) önemli derecede daha azdır. Çalışma süresi boyunca, Right-On ile yapıştırılan Edgeway braketlerinden hiçbirisi kop-mamışür.
FULL TEXT (PDF): 
PDF icon arastirmax-farkli-braket-kaide-tipleri-ile-yapistiricilarin-kopma-sikliklarinin-vivo-olarak-incelenmesi.pdf
  • 3
170
176
  • Turkish

REFERENCES

References: 

1. Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 269-76.
2. Ahuna G, Freeman E. The reaction of skin to primers used in the "single-step" bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dento-facOrthop 1987: 91: 105-10.
3. Artım J, Thylstrup A. A 3 year clinical and SEM study of surface changes of carios enamel lessions after inactivaii-on. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989: 95:327-33.
4. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955: 34: 849-53. (Kaynak 1 l'den alınmıştır)
5. Cavına RA. Clinical evaluation of direct bonding. BrJ Orthod 1977: 4:29-31.
6. Cook PA, Youngson CC. An in \itro studv of the bond strength of a glass ionomer cement in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Br] Orthod 1988: 15:247-53.
7. Davoli ME, Meyer BI. A clinical investigation of direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth. Research Abstracts, Am J Orthod 1979: 75:221.
8. Dickinson PT, Powers JM. Evaluation of fourteen direct-bonding bases. Am J Orthod 1980: 78: 630-9.
9. Ferguson, JVV, Read MJF, Watts DC. Bond strengths of an integral bracket-base combination: an in vitro studv. EurJ Orthod 1984; 0:267-76.
10. Fox NA.: Fluoride release from orthodontic bonding materials. An in vitro study. BrJ Orthod 1990: / 7:293-8.
11. Geigcr AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ. Bond failure rates of facial and lingual attachments, y Clin Orthod 1983:
17: 165-8.
12. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Implications ol the failure rates of bonded brackets and eyelets: A clinical study. Am J Orthod 1984: 86: 403-6.
13. Gorelick L. Bonding metal brackets with a self-polymerizing sealant-composite: A 12-month assessment. Am J Orthod 1977: 71:542-53.
14. Lopez Jt. Re tan t ive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod 1980: 77: 669-78.
15. Lovius BBJ, Pender N, Hcwage S, O'Dowling I, Tom-kins A. A clinical trial of a light activated bonding material over an 18 month period. Br J Orthod \987: 14: 11-20.
16. Miller EG, Thompson LR, Ziemmermann ER. Bowles WH. In vivo studies on the carcinogenic potential of an orthodontic bonding resin. Am J Orthod 1984: 86: 342-6.
17. Newman GV. First direct bonding in orthodontia Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992: 101: 190-1.
18. Sonis AL, Sncl! W. An evaluation of a fluoride-re leasing, visible light-activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989: 95: 306-11.
19. Swartz ML, Phillips R\V, Clark HE. Long term F release from glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1984: 63:158-60.
20. Tell RT, Sydiskis RJ. Isaacs RD. Davidson WH. Long-term cytotoxicity of orthodontic direct-bonding adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988: 93: 419-22.
21. Zachıisson BU. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977: 71: 173-89.

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