research centers


Search results: Found 2

Listing 1 - 2 of 2
Sort by

Article
Assessment of Enamel Surface after Debonding of Different Types of Esthetic Brackets (An In Vitro Study)

Authors: Ghaith M. Hasan غيث حسن --- Dhiaa J. N. Al-Dabagh ضياء جعفر الدباغ
Journal: Journal of baghdad college of dentistry مجلة كلية طب الاسنان بغداد ISSN: 16800087 Year: 2016 Volume: 28 Issue: 4 Pages: 162-167
Publisher: Baghdad University جامعة بغداد

Loading...
Loading...
Abstract

Background: Debonding orthodontic brackets and removal of residual bonding material from the enamel surface include critical steps that may cause enamel damage. The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the site of bond failure and enamel surface damage after debonding of three types of esthetic brackets (composite, ceramic, sapphire) bonded with light cure composite and resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive.Materials and methods: Seventy two maxillary premolars teeth were divided into three groups each group consisted of 24 teeth according to the type of brackets. Each group was subdivided into two subgroups (12 teeth for each) according to the bonding material that was used. After 7 days of bonding procedure, the brackets were debonded using specifically designed debonding device in which the brackets were debonded by a debonding pliers to simulate the actual clinical debonding procedure. Instron Universal testing was used to apply the debonding force on the debonding pliers which transferred to the bracket. The teeth and the brackets were examined with a 10X magnifying lens to evaluate the site of failure. After the removal of residual adhesive, stereomicroscope was used to evaluate enamel surface damage.Results: The most common type of bond failure was cohesive failure (Score II) in all esthetic brackets. While enamel cracks (scale I) were found to be the most type of enamel damage. Chi- square showed non-significant differences among different types of esthetic bracket bonded with same type of adhesive and between the same types of brackets (ceramic, sapphire) bonded with the two types of adhesive. On the other hand, there was significant difference between composite brackets subgroups bonded with the two adhesives.Conclusion: The bond failure mostly within the adhesive itself and higher enamel damage was resulted from mechanical debonding of these esthetic brackets.


Article
The Influence of Caries Infiltrant Combined with and without Conventional Adhesives on Sealing of Sound Enamel (In Vitro Study)

Authors: Marwa Balasim مروة بلاسم --- Dhiaa J. N. Al-Dabagh ضياء جعفر الدباغ
Journal: Journal of baghdad college of dentistry مجلة كلية طب الاسنان بغداد ISSN: 16800087 Year: 2016 Volume: 28 Issue: 2 Pages: 119-125
Publisher: Baghdad University جامعة بغداد

Loading...
Loading...
Abstract

Background: The formation of white spot lesions around fixed orthodontic attachments is a common complicationduring and after fixed orthodontic treatment, which hinders the result of a successfully completed orthodontictreatment. The aim of the study was to assess the effectiveness of the Caries Infiltrant (ICON®) on prevention of carieson the smooth enamel surface when applied alone or combined with conventional adhesives.Materials and methods: Seventy eight human premolar enamel discs were randomly assigned to six groups (n=13).The discs were etched and treated with resins of different monomer content forming the following groups:(1)Untreated etched samples served as the negative control, (2) ICON® (DMG), (3) Adper™ SB 2 (3M ESPE), (4)Heliobond (IvoclarVivadent), (5) ICON®+ Adper™ SB 2 and (6) ICON®+ Heliobond. Specimens were subjected todemineralization by immersion in hydrochloric acid (pH 2.6) for 18 days. Calcium dissolution into the acid wasassessed by photometric test via spectrophotometer at 24 hour intervals.Results: The results revealed that, there was a highly significant difference between the sealed groups and theunsealed (untreated) one (p≤0.00) indicating that the unsealed specimens showed the highest amount of Ca ion lossamong all other groups. Additionally, there was no significant difference between untreated specimens and theICON® sealed ones. While, Heliobond decreased the Ca ion loss significantly compared to the untreated specimensand Adper™ SB 2 performed significantly better than both ICON® and Heliobond. Furthermore, the combination ofICON® with either Adper™ SB 2 or Heliobond served as the best protective measures and maintained the protectiveeffect during the whole experiment period. Therefore, within the limitations of this in vitro study, it could beconcluded that the use of Caries Infiltrant prior to the application of the tested conventional adhesives increasestheir protective effect against demineralization.

Listing 1 - 2 of 2
Sort by
Narrow your search

Resource type

article (2)


Language

English (2)


Year
From To Submit

2016 (2)