Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
ISSN 1807-2577 (Eletrônico)
Artigo Original

Influence of Primekote® polymer in orthodontic bonding

Influência do polímero Primekote® na colagem ortodôntica

Eduardo Otero Amaral VARGAS; Cinthia Candemil NUERNBERG; José Vinicius Bolognesi MACIEL; Ana Maria BOLOGNESE

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: The Primekote® (TP) polymer was incorporated to the of Orthodontic Bracket mesh base to improve bond strength and make it more efficient. The purpose of this study was to assess the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of these brackets.

Material and method: The test sample consisted of thirty bovine incisors divided into 2 groups: with a group with TP® brackets (n=15), and a control group with Morelli® brackets (n=15) without Primekote® technology. The TransbondTM XT was used as adhesive system in both groups, following the same protocol and manufacturer’s instructions. Specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then submitted to shear bond strength test in a universal testing machine (EMIC DL2000). The assessment of ARI was performed under stereomicroscope by two calibrated examiners.

Result: No significant differences (p>0.05) in shear bond strength were found between the two groups according to the independent t-test. The Wilcoxon test was used to assess ARI data and statistical difference was found between Morelli® and TP® Nu-Edge brackets; the last one left less remaining adhesive on tooth surface.

Conclusion: TP® brackets had higher adherence to the adhesive system as shown by lower ARI scores, but this does not improve its clinical performance.

 

Keywords

Shear strength, orthodontic brackets, dental debonding, adhesiveness

Resumo

Resumo: Objetivo: Avaliar a resistência ao cisalhamento e o índice de remanescente adesivo (IRA) dos bráquetes que tiveram o polímero Primekote® incorporado a suas bases.

Material e método: Foram confeccionados trinta corpos de prova com incisivos bovinos, divididos em dois grupos: o colado com bráquete TP® Nu-Edge(n=15) e grupo controle com bráquetes Morelli® (n=15) sem tratamento na base. O sistema adesivo TransbondTM XT foi utilizado nos dois grupos seguindo o mesmo protocolo de colagem e respeitando as instruções do fabricante. Os corpos de prova foram armazenados em água destilada por 24 horas, e posteriormente submetidos ao teste de cisalhamento na máquina de ensaios universais (EMIC-DL2000). O IRA foi avaliado por dois examinadores calibrados utilizando lupa estereoscópica com aumento de 20 vezes.

Resultado: Na resistência ao cisalhamento o teste T-independente mostrou não haver diferença estatisticamente significante entre os grupos (p>0,05), ambos tiveram desempenho semelhante. O teste Wilcoxon foi utilizado nos valores obtidos no IRA revelando diferença estatística, sendo que os bráquetes TP® deixaram menos remanescente adesivo na superfície dental que os bráquetes Morelli®.

Conclusão: Bráquetes TP® apresentaram maior adesão ao sistema adesivo pois foi encontrado menor IRA nos mesmos, porém esta característica não reflete em melhora no desempenho clínico.
 

Palavras-chave

Resistência ao cisalhamento, braquetes ortodônticos, descolagem dentária, adesividade

Referências

Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53. PMid:13271655. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801.

Yadav J, Mehrotra P, Kapoor S, Mehrotra R. Basis of orthodontics-bonding: a review. Int J Dent Sci Res. 2013 Apr;1(1):28-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdsr.2013.04.005.

Bishara SE, Olsen ME, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Jul;116(1):86-92. PMid:10393585. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70307-0.

Goyal A, Chandna AK, Sehgal V, Kannan S, Gupta A, Rajain A, et al. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases: an in vitro study. J Indian Orthod Soc. 2013 Jul;47(3):121-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1143.

Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, et al. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010 Nov;80(6):1036-44. PMid:20677952. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/033110-48.1.

Pithon MM, Oliveira MV, Ruellas AC, Bolognese AM, Romano FL. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007 Apr;15(2):127-30. PMid:19089115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000200010.

Keizer S, ten Cate J, Arends J. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod. 1976 Mar;69(3):318-27. PMid:766645. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(76)90079-8.

Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):717-24. PMid:15592221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.10.032.

Devanna R, Keluskar KM. Crystal growth vs. conventional acid etching: a comparative evaluation of etch patterns, penetration depths, and bond strengths. Indian J Dent Res. 2008 Oct-Dec;19(4):309-14. PMid:19075433. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0970-9290.44533.

Sabatoski MA, Maruo IT, Camargo ES, Guariza O Fo, Tanaka OM, Maruo H. Influence of natural bovine enamel roughness on bond strength after etching. Angle Orthod. 2010 May;80(3):562-9. PMid:20050753. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/031309-148.1.

Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Sep;98(3):263-73. PMid:2206042. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81604-X.

Samruajbenjakul B, Kukiattrakoon B. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs to feldspathic porcelains. Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):571-6. PMid:19413398. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/060308-290.1.

Guzman UA, Jerrold L, Vig PS, Abdelkarim A. Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets. Prog Orthod. 2013 Oct;14(1):39. PMid:24325904. http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/2196-1042-14-39.

Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1078-83. PMid:18947289. http://dx.doi.org/10.2319/112007-540.1.

Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of different bracket base surfaces on tensile and shear bond strength. Eur J Orthod. 2008 Oct;30(5):490-4. PMid:18684707. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn029.
 

58ff887c0e8825966dabdcf1 rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections