Shear bond strength of orthodontic attachments bonded to impacted teeth under <i>in vivo</i> and <i>in vitro</i> conditions

Arıcı, Nursel; Bulut, Emel

doi:10.1111/ocr.12043

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, doubts persist about the best accessory to bond in these situations, considering the infinite number of devices available for this purpose. 11,13 Based on this premise, the authors' proposal in the present study was to evaluate the in vitro shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different orthodontic accessories used for applying traction to impacted teeth. In addition, the null hypothesis tested was that the shear bond strength and the ARI were similar for all orthodontic traction objects.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shear Bond Strength of different accessories used to traction impacted teeth

Pithon¹,

Costa²,

Junior³

et al. 2017

j.rpemd

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different orthodontic accessories used for applying traction on impacted teeth. Methods: 120 bovine incisors were used. Initially, all teeth were submitted to prophylaxis, subsequent etching with 37% phosphoric acid, application of adhesive and light polymerization. Afterwards, these teeth were randomly divided into eight groups: (1) composite lingual button; (2) hook for application of traction on impacted teeth; (3) hook with chain; (4) cleat; (5) brackets; (6) convex lingual button; (7) concave lingual button; and (8) orthodontic mesh. The groups were submitted to shear tests in a universal test machine, and ARI evaluation. Results: The group of orthodontic mesh (8) presented the best shear bond strength results with statistically significant differences comparing with the composite lingual button (p<0.001), hooks for application of traction on impacted teeth (p=0.002), hooks with chain (p=0.001), cleat (p=0.011), brackets (p< 0.001), convex lingual button (p=0.003) and convex lingual button (p<0.001). The highest mean ARI values were also obtained for the mesh group, with statistically significant differences comparing with the composite lingual button (p=0.008), cleat (p=0.004), brackets (p=0.001), convex lingual button (p=0.017) and concave lingual button (p=0.005). Conclusion: The greatest adhesion forces were obtained with the orthodontic mesh, which was statistically different from all other groups, and the lowest adhesion forces with the

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%