REMNANT ADHESIVE FLASH IN ORTHODONTIC BONDING SYSTEMS WITH DIFFERENT CHARACTERISTICS

Authors

  • Erika Machado Caldeira Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal Fluminense, Niterói, RJ, Brazil
  • Paola Estefan Sass Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
  • Vicente Telles da Silva University of Pittsburgh School of Dental Medicine
  • Nathalia Lima Freze Fernandes Private practice
  • Claudia Trindade Mattos Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
  • Carlos Nelson Elias Biomaterials Laboratory, Instituto Militar de Engenharia, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
  • Ana Maria Bolognese Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil
  • Matilde da Cunha Gonçalves Nojima Department of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.29327/24816.5.2-4

Keywords:

Dental bonding, Orthodontic adhesive, dental materials

Abstract

Introduction: Excess of adhesive around brackets negatively impact oral health of orthodontic patients. Objective: Evaluate the influence of orthodontic bonding system in removal of adhesive flash around orthodontic brackets. Methods: Based on their characteristics, four orthodontic bonding systems were selected: lightcuring adhesive (G1 - TransbondTM XT); pink pigmented light-curing adhesive (G2- TransbondTM Plus Color Change); resin-modified glass ionomer cement (G3 - FujiOrthoTM LC); and auto-curing adhesive (G4 - ConciseTM). For each group (n=10), a single operator placed metal brackets on bovine teeth (n=40) and used an explorer tip to visually remove flash excess. After curing / setting, the samples
were taken to a stereomicroscope and the Axio Vision 4.4 software was used to measure the area of remnant adhesive flash around each bracket. The quantitative data obtained was analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s post hoc test at = 0.05. Results: The results show that the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (G3) had a larger area of remnant material than the other groups. There was no statistical difference between the other groups (G1, G2, and G4), independently of pigmentation or curing technique. Conclusion: It was concluded that the use of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement results in a larger area of remnant flash excess, which can negatively impact oral health. Pigmentation and curing technique did not influence on remnant flash excess.

Downloads

Published

2021-05-21

Issue

Vol. 5 No. 2: May-August 2020

Section

Articles