Linked Life Data

15316475

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/15316475

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
2
pubmed:dateCreated
2004-8-18
pubmed:abstractText
The objectives of this study were (1) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America, Alsip, Ill) after conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive (Light Bond; Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) bonded with 37% phosphoric acid, (2) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives, (3) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI), and (4) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid, with scanning electron microscopy. In the in vitro study, 50 extracted premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups: brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours. Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test. The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were randomly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique. Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function. The in vitro study results showed significant differences (P <.05) among the adhesives and the debond times. Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours (18.46 +/- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 +/- 1.85 MPa) and 30 minutes (16.19 +/- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 +/- 1.93 MPa). Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive (4.9 vs 4.1). For the in vivo study, no significant differences in failure rate, sex, or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives. These results suggest that, compared with conventional resin, brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro. However, similar survival rates of the 2 materials studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinically. The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
D
pubmed:chemical
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Aug
pubmed:issn
0889-5406
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
126
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
200-6; quiz 254-5
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Acid Etching, Dental, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Acrylic Resins, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Aluminum Silicates, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Analysis of Variance, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Composite Resins, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Dental Bonding, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Dental Debonding, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Dental Enamel, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Dental Stress Analysis, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Glass Ionomer Cements, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Humans, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Materials Testing, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Microscopy, Electron, Scanning, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Orthodontic Brackets, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Resin Cements, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Shear Strength, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Surface Properties, pubmed-meshheading:15316475-Survival Analysis
pubmed:year
2004
pubmed:articleTitle
Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study.
pubmed:affiliation
Department of Restorative Dentistry, West Virginia University School of Dentistry, Morgantown 26506, USA.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Clinical Trial, Comparative Study, Randomized Controlled Trial