Comparison between enamel demineralization around different bracket types (In vitro study)

Mmohamed Mahmoud Emam, Ahmed Shawky Hashem
{"title":"Comparison between enamel demineralization around different bracket types (In vitro study)","authors":"Mmohamed Mahmoud Emam, Ahmed Shawky Hashem","doi":"10.21608/eos.2023.255628.1100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The objective of this study was to compare between enamel demineralization around stainless steel brackets, metal flash-free brackets and ceramic flash-free brackets. Materials and Methods: Forty natural teeth were divided in a random manner into four groups of equal size. The first group, denoted as the control group, comprised non-bonded teeth. The second group included stainless steel brackets bonded with a conventional light-curing adhesive. The third group consisted of adhesive coated metal flash free brackets bonded to teeth. Finally, the fourth group consisted of adhesive coated ceramic flash-free brackets that were bonded to teeth. After bonding, demineralization at the gingival side of the brackets was measured using a diagnodent pen. Teeth in all groups were subsequently subjected to demineralization to develop artificial carious lesions. A second measure for demineralization was recorded for each group. The demineralization values of the four groups were subjected to statistical analysis using One-Way ANOVA test followed by pot Hoc LSD analysis between every two groups. Results: Before the process of demineralization, there were insignificant differences among the four groups (P=0.784). Following the process of demineralization, significant differences became apparent among the four groups, with group II demonstrating a higher value in comparison to groups III and IV (P< 0.001). Conclusions: The enamel demineralization level was higher around conventional brackets when compared to flash-free brackets. Both metal and ceramic flash free brackets showed similar amounts of enamel demineralization around them.","PeriodicalId":483969,"journal":{"name":"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal","volume":"27 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Egyptian Orthodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"0","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/eos.2023.255628.1100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare between enamel demineralization around stainless steel brackets, metal flash-free brackets and ceramic flash-free brackets. Materials and Methods: Forty natural teeth were divided in a random manner into four groups of equal size. The first group, denoted as the control group, comprised non-bonded teeth. The second group included stainless steel brackets bonded with a conventional light-curing adhesive. The third group consisted of adhesive coated metal flash free brackets bonded to teeth. Finally, the fourth group consisted of adhesive coated ceramic flash-free brackets that were bonded to teeth. After bonding, demineralization at the gingival side of the brackets was measured using a diagnodent pen. Teeth in all groups were subsequently subjected to demineralization to develop artificial carious lesions. A second measure for demineralization was recorded for each group. The demineralization values of the four groups were subjected to statistical analysis using One-Way ANOVA test followed by pot Hoc LSD analysis between every two groups. Results: Before the process of demineralization, there were insignificant differences among the four groups (P=0.784). Following the process of demineralization, significant differences became apparent among the four groups, with group II demonstrating a higher value in comparison to groups III and IV (P< 0.001). Conclusions: The enamel demineralization level was higher around conventional brackets when compared to flash-free brackets. Both metal and ceramic flash free brackets showed similar amounts of enamel demineralization around them.
不同托槽类型周围釉质脱矿情况的比较(体外研究)
研究目的本研究的目的是比较不锈钢托槽、无金属闪光托槽和无陶瓷闪光托槽周围的牙釉质脱矿情况。材料和方法:将 40 颗天然牙齿随机分为四组,每组牙齿大小相同。第一组为对照组,包括未粘结的牙齿。第二组包括使用传统光固化粘合剂粘接的不锈钢托槽。第三组包括粘接在牙齿上的涂有粘合剂的金属无闪烁托槽。最后,第四组包括粘接在牙齿上的涂有粘合剂的陶瓷无闪烁托槽。粘接后,使用诊断笔测量托槽牙龈侧的脱矿情况。随后对所有组别的牙齿进行脱矿处理,以形成人工龋损。对每组牙齿进行第二次脱矿测量。使用单向方差分析对四组的脱矿值进行统计分析,然后对每两组进行Pot Hoc LSD分析。结果脱矿前,四组之间的差异不显著(P=0.784)。脱矿过程结束后,四组之间出现了明显的差异,第二组的数值高于第三组和第四组(P< 0.001)。结论与无闪光托槽相比,传统托槽周围的牙釉质脱矿程度更高。金属和陶瓷无闪烁托槽周围的牙釉质脱矿化程度相似。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信