- All Journals
- Al-Qadisiyah University
- Basrah University
- Kirkuk University
- Mosul University
- The Iraqi Borad for Medical Specialization
- University of Anbar
- University of Technology
- Al Mustafa University
- Al-Zahraa University for Women
- Alnoor University
- Kunooz University
- Misan University
- Ninevah University
- Tikrit University
- University of Al-Hamdaniya
- University of Kerbala
Enamel surface damage after Use of self-etched Flowable composite and conventional orthodontic bonding systems "An in vitro study" | ||
| karbala journal of pharmaceutical sciences | ||
| Article 1, Volume 7, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 116-123 PDF (0 K) | ||
| Author | ||
| Rawof R. Al-Tuma | ||
| Abstract | ||
| Background: This study aims to evaluate enamel surface damage and the site of bond failure after using of two materials with each has different adhesive techniques. One of them is self-etch (7th generation bonding system) while the other with three steps conventional technique(5th generation bonding system). Materials and methods: eighty premolars, extracted for orthodontic purposes, were divided into 4 groups of 20. The enamel surfaces were examined with 10X magnifying lens. Two types of bracket (stainless steel and ceramic) was bonded and debonded in each group using ligature wire cutter. The three steps adhesives was conventional orthodontic bracket adhesive of Oromco company, the self-etch flowable adhesive was Vertise flow flowable composite of Kerr company ;After debonding, the enamel surfaces were inspected under a stereomicroscope to determine the predominant site of bond failure and adhesive remnant index. Then stereomicroscope was used to evaluate enamel surface damage after the removal of residual adhesive. Results: The reduction in enamel surface damage showed a statistically non-significant with the use of self-etched flowable adhesive in both ceramic and stainless steel brackets groups. The amount of the adhesive remained on the tooth surface significantly increase for groups that bonded with self-etched flowable adhesive in both stainless steel and ceramic brackets. The predominant failure site in self-etch flowable adhesive was between enamel and bracket for both types of brackets. Conclusion: The enamel surface damage that results from debonding of conventional orthodontic adhesives was non significantly higher than that found with self-etch flowable adhesive for both metal and ceramic brackets "used in this study" | ||
| Keywords | ||
| enamel surface damage; adhesive remnant index; Self; etch; flowable adhesives | ||
|
Statistics Article View: 231 PDF Download: 132 |
||