INTRODUCTION: In recent years, a strong behavior change regarding the control of cross infection during dental treatment was perceived, except among some orthodontists who insist in the misconception that Orthodontics is a specialty of low risk in the transmission of infectious and contagious diseases. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the methods used by orthodontists for disinfection of pliers in their daily practice. METHODS: The bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Staphylococcus aureus and Streptococcus salivarius were inoculated in vitro in 30 orthodontic pliers. The pliers were divided into 3 groups (n = 10) and disinfected in different ways. Group 1: Brush, soap and water; Group 2: Cotton soaked in ethyl alcohol 70%; Group 3: Immersion in a solution of 2% glutaraldehyde for 30 minutes and then rinsed with water. RESULTS: The results showed that the ethyl alcohol 70% (Group 2) kept 20% of the pliers infected, being more efficient than the soap and water (Group 1), which maintained 60% of contaminated pliers. Only immersion in 2% glutaraldehyde was able to decontaminate all pliers and was statistically superior to the aforementioned methods (p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Based on these results, we concluded that among the tested methods, disinfection of orthodontic pliers with 2% glutaraldehyde is the only efficient method.

OBJETIVO: investigar a opinião do ortodontista brasileiro sobre a problemática paciente x profissional em relação: 1) à importância da relação comercial estabelecida pelo CDC (Código de Defesa do Consumidor); 2) à natureza obrigacional dos seus serviços ortodônticos; 3) às explicações, ao paciente, dos riscos inerentes ao tratamento ortodôntico. METODOLOGIA: para tal, foi realizado um censo estatístico através de questionário enviado a todos os ortodontistas do Brasil, devidamente inscritos no Conselho Federal de Odontologia. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: participaram da pesquisa 1.469 ortodontistas (27,43% do universo pesquisado). Dessa forma, verificou-se que 86,93% dos ortodontistas brasileiros reconhecem a importância da relação comercial com seu paciente, de acordo com o CDC; 35,33% dos profissionais consideram a Ortodontia como uma atividade de meio, isto é, execução do tratamento ortodôntico sem promessa profissional de um resultado final; e 63,31% orientam, de forma oral e escrita, os seus pacientes sobre os riscos do tratamento ortodôntico. Concluiu-se que o ortodontista brasileiro está consciente da importância do CDC na relação comercial estabelecida com o seu paciente, o consumidor final. No entanto, apenas uma minoria dos ortodontistas do Brasil (20,97%), além de considerar importante essa relação comercial, entende a atividade ortodôntica como obrigação de meio e mantém o paciente informado, de forma oral e com os devidos registros, dos riscos de um tratamento ortodôntico.

Atualmente no mercado odontológico existem diversos tipos de materiais restauradores que liberam flúor com o objetivo de diminuir ou eliminar as cáries recorrentes. Considerando-se a diferença de composição desses materiais, foi avaliada sua capacidade de liberação de flúor. Foram avaliados os materiais restauradores: Chelon-fil (ESPE), Vitremer (3M), Variglass (Dentsply), Dyract (Dentsply) e Tetric (Vivadent). Confeccionaram-se seis amostras cilíndricas (área = 1,65 cm2) de cada material, as quais foram imersas individualmente em 2,0 ml de água deionizada, que foi trocada diariamente durante 15 dias. A liberação de flúor foi determinada após adição de volume igual de tampão TISAB II às soluções. Para a análise da concentração de flúor foi utilizado um eletrodo específico para flúor Orion 96-09, acoplado a um analisador de íons Orion EA-940. Todos os materiais seguiram o mesmo padrão de liberação de flúor. As maiores médias de flúor liberado dentro de cada material foram encontradas no 1º dia, decrescendo bruscamente no 2º e 3º dias, e a quantidade de flúor liberado apresentou um decréscimo com o passar dos dias até atingir um nível quase constante. A liberação média de flúor durante o período de avaliação (média e desvio padrão) em µg F/cm2 foi: CHE = 7,62 ± 0,76A, VIT = 5,91 ± 0,79B, VAR = 2,72 ± 0,25C, DYR = 1,50 ± 0,17 D, TET = 0,136 ± 0,016 E. Médias seguidas por letras distintas diferem entre si ao nível de significância de 5% (Tukey). Os resultados mostraram que a composição dos materiais restauradores influencia de maneira significativa sua liberação de flúor.

Aim and Scope Operative Dentistry publishes articles that advance the practice of operative dentistry. The scope of the journal includes conservation and restoration of teeth; the scientific foundation of operative dental therapy; dental materials; dental education; and the social, political, and economic aspects of dental practice. Review papers, book reviews, letters, and classified ads for faculty positions also are published.

Although it is possible to obtain a reliable bond between enamel and composite resin, the ideal bonding method of composite resin to dentin still needs to be developed. Variables such as the type of adhesive system used and type of dentin substrate can influence on the adhesion. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of composite resin restorations to human and bovine dentin using three adhesive systems. Material and methods: Fifteen human third molars sectioned into two halves and 30 bovine incisors were cut into blocks (4x4mm), embedded in acrylic resin and ground flat to expose the dentin. The specimens were randomly divided into six groups (n = 10): group 1 – human dentin using Scotchbond Multi-Purpose; group 2 – human dentin using Adper Single Bond 2; group 3 – human dentin using Adper Prompt L-Pop; group 4 – bovine dentin using Scotchbond Multi-Purpose; group 5 – bovine dentin using Adper Single Bond 2; group 6 – bovine dentin using Adper Prompt L-Pop. After composite resin restoration procedure, the specimens were stored into distilled water for 24h at 37ºC and then submitted to the shear test using a universal testing machine. The failure patterns were examined microscopically and classified as adhesive, cohesive in resin, cohesive in dentin or both, and mixed. The ANOVA (two-way) and Tukey’s post hoc were used. Chi-square test for independence was used for analysis of failure mode. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: A significant difference in shear bond strength was observed among adhesive systems (p = 0.031), with higher values for one-bottle adhesive (8.87±2.72) and lower for self-etching (6.38±3.15), and between the two types of substrate (p = 0.018), with higher values for human dentin. However, there was no significant difference for the adhesive system/substrate interaction (p = 0.11). Adhesive failure was the predominant failure mode for all adhesive systems and for the two substrates. Conclusion: Shear bond strength was different between human and bovine substrates and for the adhesive system used.

No abstract