Objective To evaluate the esthetic perceptions of orthodontists and laypersons for facial profile changes after orthodontic treatment using Herbst or Forsus appliances. Materials and Methods Pre- and posttreatment facial profile contour images of 20 Class II patients treated with Herbst (group H; n = 10) and Forsus (group F; n = 10) appliances were analyzed by 30 orthodontists and 30 laypersons, who graded them from 1 (unattractive) to 10 (very attractive) using a visual analog scale. Two assessments were carried out with a 15 day-interval. In the first evaluation, 40 images were presented in a random sequence. In the second evaluation, initial and final facial profile images of each patient were randomly presented side by side. To compare groups in relation to treatment method, Mann-Whitney tests were used. To evaluate differences between time points, Wilcoxon tests were used. Results In the first evaluation, there was a significant difference between initial and final images only for group H, for both laypersons (P = .017) and orthodontists (P = .037). There was also a significant difference between laypersons and orthodontists in their ratings of posttreatment Herbst appliance profiles (P = .028). There was no significant difference between initial and final facial profile images for group F and no significant differences between or within evaluator groups in their ratings of initial or final Forsus appliance profiles. In the second evaluation, there was a significant difference between appliance groups only for laypersons, who considered cases treated with the Herbst appliance more attractive than those treated with the Forsus (P = .031). Laypersons also considered Herbst profiles more attractive than did orthodontists (P = .047). Conclusions Class II malocclusion treatment using the Herbst appliance may produce a more esthetically improved facial profile silhouette compared with Forsus appliances. The magnitude of perceived changes may not be considered clinically relevant.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of rebonded ceramic brackets after subjecting the bracket base to different treatments. Seventy-five premolars were selected and randomly distributed into five groups (n=15), according to the type of the bracket surface treatment: I, no treatment, first bonding (control); II, sandblasting with aluminum oxide; III, sandblasting + silane; IV, silica coating + silane; and V, silicatization performed in a laboratory (Rocatec system). The brackets were fixed on an enamel surface with Transbond XT resin without acid etching. The brackets were then removed and their bases were subjected to different treatments. Thereafter, the brackets were fixed again to the enamel surface and the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was then evaluated for each specimen. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (a=0.05). A statistically significant difference was observed only between Rocatec and the other groups; the Rocatec group showed the lowest SBS values. The highest SBS values were observed for group 1, without any significant difference from the values for groups II, III and IV. Most groups had a higher percentage of failures at the enamel-resin interface (score 1). It was concluded that the surface treatments of rebonded ceramic brackets were effective, with SBS values similar to that of the control group, except Rocatec group.

Introduction and Objective: To evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets fixed with different materials (two light-cured nanofilled low-viscosity resins -Transbond Supreme LV and Flow Tain LV and two light-cured traditional resins -Transbond XT and Transbond Plus Color Change) after 10 min and 24 h, and to evaluate the type of failure. Material and methods: Eighty bovine incisors were selected and randomly divided into groups (n = 10) according to the material and fixation period. The brackets were bonded following the manufacturer's instructions and stored in deionized water at 37 o C for 10 min or 24 h. After, the specimens were submitted to shear bond strength test at 0.5 mm/min and evaluated for adhesive remnant index (ARI). The data were submitted to Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05) and the ARI scores to Chi-Square test. Results: There was a significant difference among the materials (p < 0.05) (after 10 min -Transbond XT > Transbond Plus Color Change > Transbond Supreme LV = Flow Tain LV and after 24 h -Transbond XT > Transbond Plus Color Change = Transbond Supreme LV =

To evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets fixed with different materials (two light-cured nanofilled low-viscosity resins – Transbond Supreme LV and Flow Tain LV and two light-cured traditional resins – Transbond XT and Transbond Plus Color Change) after 10 min and 24 h, and to evaluate the type of failure. Material and methods: Eighty bovine incisors were selected and randomly divided into groups (n = 10) according to the material and fixation period. The brackets were bonded following the manufacturer's instructions and stored in deionized water at 37oC for 10 min or 24 h. After, the specimens were submitted to shear bond strength test at 0.5 mm/min and evaluated for adhesive remnant index (ARI). The data were submitted to Kruskal Wallis and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05) and the ARI scores to Chi-Square test. Results: There was a significant difference among the materials (p < 0.05) (after 10 min – Transbond XT > Transbond Plus Color Change > Transbond Supreme LV = Flow Tain LV and after 24 h – Transbond XT > Transbond Plus Color Change = Transbond Supreme LV =Flow Tain LV). There was no significant difference in resistance values between 10 min and 24 h, except for Transbond Plus Color Change. Most groups showed adhesive remaining adhered to the enamel (scores 2 and 3) without statistical significant difference (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The light-cured traditional resins showed higher resistance than the nanofilled materials. The period of fixation had no influence on the resistance for different materials, except for Transbond Plus Color Change.