Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Failure Rate Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Composite- A Randomized Control Trial

IF 0.1 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Savani Sawant, Nitin Gulve, Amit Nehete, Shivpirya Aher
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Failure Rate Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Composite- A Randomized Control Trial","authors":"Savani Sawant, Nitin Gulve, Amit Nehete, Shivpirya Aher","doi":"10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i3.882","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Introduction: Successful orthodontic treatment depends on the adhesive used for bonding orthodontic brackets and patient cooperation. Resin based adhesives are conventionally used but have drawbacks like white spot lesions and technique sensitivity. To overcome these problems, Resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) were introduced to utilise the fluoride releasing characteristic of GIC. Aim: To compare and evaluate bond failure rate and type of bond failure between brackets bonded with RMGIC and composite. Materials and methods: 25 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were included and evaluated for 6 months. Bonding was done with RMGIC and composite. Patients were recalled every month and bond failure rate and type of bond failure was evaluated. Results: A total of 526 teeth were bonded out of which 263 were bonded with RMGIC and 263 with composite. Statistical analysis was done with Chi-square test (p>0.05). Maximum debonding was seen in RMGIC group (6.46%) compared to composite (3.42%). Maximum debonding was seen in 1st molars bonded with RMGIC (35.3%). Majority bond failure type observed was Adhesive enamel failure in brackets bonded with RMGIC. Conclusion: From the study, it can be concluded that bond failure was commonly seen in RMGIC group in comparison with composite group. Adhesive enamel failure was the most commonly seen bracket failure type. RMGIC had majority bracket failure but within acceptable range and hence can be used as a substitute adhesive for bonding.","PeriodicalId":29888,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","volume":"2 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i3.882","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Successful orthodontic treatment depends on the adhesive used for bonding orthodontic brackets and patient cooperation. Resin based adhesives are conventionally used but have drawbacks like white spot lesions and technique sensitivity. To overcome these problems, Resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) were introduced to utilise the fluoride releasing characteristic of GIC. Aim: To compare and evaluate bond failure rate and type of bond failure between brackets bonded with RMGIC and composite. Materials and methods: 25 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were included and evaluated for 6 months. Bonding was done with RMGIC and composite. Patients were recalled every month and bond failure rate and type of bond failure was evaluated. Results: A total of 526 teeth were bonded out of which 263 were bonded with RMGIC and 263 with composite. Statistical analysis was done with Chi-square test (p>0.05). Maximum debonding was seen in RMGIC group (6.46%) compared to composite (3.42%). Maximum debonding was seen in 1st molars bonded with RMGIC (35.3%). Majority bond failure type observed was Adhesive enamel failure in brackets bonded with RMGIC. Conclusion: From the study, it can be concluded that bond failure was commonly seen in RMGIC group in comparison with composite group. Adhesive enamel failure was the most commonly seen bracket failure type. RMGIC had majority bracket failure but within acceptable range and hence can be used as a substitute adhesive for bonding.
树脂改性玻璃离聚体水泥与复合材料正畸托槽粘结失败率的比较研究——随机对照试验
简介:成功的正畸治疗取决于用于粘合正畸托槽的粘合剂和患者的配合。树脂基胶粘剂通常使用,但有缺点,如白斑病变和技术敏感性。为了克服这些问题,引入了树脂改性玻璃离子水门合剂(RMGIC)来利用树脂改性玻璃离子水门合剂的释氟特性。目的:比较和评价RMGIC与复合材料支架的粘结失败率和粘结类型。材料与方法:选取25例正在接受正畸治疗的患者,进行为期6个月的评估。用RMGIC和复合材料进行粘接。每个月对患者进行回顾,评估连接失败率和连接失效类型。结果:共粘接526颗牙,其中RMGIC粘接263颗,复合粘接263颗。统计学分析采用卡方检验(p>0.05)。与复合组(3.42%)相比,RMGIC组脱粘最大(6.46%)。与RMGIC结合的第一磨牙脱粘最多(35.3%)。观察到的粘结破坏类型主要是RMGIC粘结的牙槽牙釉质破坏。结论:从研究中可以看出,与复合组相比,RMGIC组更常见bond failure。粘接牙釉质失效是最常见的托槽失效类型。RMGIC有大多数支架失效,但在可接受的范围内,因此可以用作粘合的替代粘合剂。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation
International Journal of Orthodontic Rehabilitation DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信