Cargando…

Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e, Nobrega, Maria de Lourdes Martins, Dametto, Fabio Roberto, dos Santos, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra, Pinheiro, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dental Press International 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.oar
_version_ 1782502687999262720
author Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Nobrega, Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto, Fabio Roberto
dos Santos, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra
Pinheiro, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
author_facet Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Nobrega, Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto, Fabio Roberto
dos Santos, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra
Pinheiro, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
author_sort Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. CONCLUSION: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5278932
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher Dental Press International
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52789322017-02-08 Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Nobrega, Maria de Lourdes Martins Dametto, Fabio Roberto dos Santos, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra Pinheiro, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão Dental Press J Orthod Original Article OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. CONCLUSION: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope. Dental Press International 2016 /pmc/articles/PMC5278932/ /pubmed/28125139 http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.oar Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License
spellingShingle Original Article
Alencar, Estefania Queiroga de Santana e
Nobrega, Maria de Lourdes Martins
Dametto, Fabio Roberto
dos Santos, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra
Pinheiro, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão
Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_fullStr Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_short Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_sort comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5278932/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28125139
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.oar
work_keys_str_mv AT alencarestefaniaqueirogadesantanae comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT nobregamariadelourdesmartins comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT damettofabioroberto comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT dossantospatriciabittencourtdutra comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT pinheirofabiohenriquedesaleitao comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents