Linked Life Data

11941343

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/11941343

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
3
pubmed:dateCreated
2002-4-9
pubmed:abstractText
The cleanup of remnant bonding adhesive from the enamel surface after debonding is an important factor for clinicians. The purposes of this study were to compare the weight, the surface area, and the cleanup times of remnant adhesive for a composite resin, Transbond (TB); a resin-modified glass ionomer, Fuji ORTHO LC bonded to enamel both conditioned (FOC) and nonconditioned (FONC); and a fluoride-releasing composite resin, Advance (ADV), bonded to nonetched enamel. In addition, 2 qualitative methods for scoring remnant adhesive were compared with the quantitative weight and area data. Forty extracted human incisors were weighed, bonded with brackets, debonded, weighed, and photographed. Area was measured from the photographs with a sonic digitizer. Mean adhesive remnant weights differed between groups (analysis of variance [ANOVA], P =.02): The remnants from ADV and FOC were equal and both significantly heavier than the remnants from FONC; the weights of the TB remnants were intermediate between the heavier ADV and FOC remnants and the lighter FONC remnants. Mean remnant areas differed between groups (ANOVA, P =.03): The remnants from ADV were significantly larger than the remnants from TB and FONC, which were equal; the areas of the FOC remnants were intermediate between the larger ADV remnants and the smaller remnants from TB and FONC. Mean cleanup times also differed between groups (ANOVA, P <.001): TB and FOC had equal times that were significantly longer than the times for ADV and FONC, which were equal. Adhesives bonded to acid-etched or conditioned enamel took about 1 and a half times longer to clean up than did those bonded to nonetched enamel. When bonded to conditioned enamel, the resin-modified glass ionomer had mean remnant adhesive weights, areas, and cleanup times statistically equivalent to TB. ADV had the fastest mean cleanup time per amount of remnant (ANOVA, P <.002). The graphs of scores for 2 qualitative methods used for scoring remnant amount did not closely resemble the graphs based on weight and area. The graph of a newly introduced qualitative method better reflected the area data. Weighing may be a useful method for quantifying remnant adhesive.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
D
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Mar
pubmed:issn
0889-5406
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
121
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
291-6
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2002
pubmed:articleTitle
Remnant amount and cleanup for 3 adhesives after debracketing.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Comparative Study