The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Low-shrinking composites. Are they reliable for bonding orthodontic retainers?

  • Uysal, Tancan (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, King Saud University) ;
  • Sakin, Caglar (Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University) ;
  • AI-Qunaian, Talal (Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, King Saud University)
  • Received : 2010.05.24
  • Accepted : 2010.08.24
  • Published : 2011.02.28
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS), fracture mode, wire pull out (WPO) resistance and microleakage between low-shrinking and conventional composites used as a lingual retainer adhesive. Methods: A total of 120 human mandibular incisor teeth, extracted for periodontal reasons, were collected. Sixty of them were separated into two groups. To determine the SBS, either Transbond-LR (3M-Unitek) or Silorane (3M-Espe) was applied to the lingual surface of the teeth by packing the material into standard cylindrical plastic matrices (Ultradent) to simulate the lingual retainer bonding area. To test WPO resistance, 20 samples were prepared for each composite where the wire was embedded in the composite materialand cured. Then tensile stress was applied until failure of the composite occurred. The remaining 60 teeth were divided into two groups and multi-stranded 0.0215-inch diameter wire was bonded with the same composites. Microleakage was evaluated by the dye penetration method. Statistical analyses were performed by Wilcoxon, Pearson chi-square, and Mann-Whitney-U tests at p < 0.05 level. Results: The SBS and WPO results were not statistically significant between the two groups. Significant differences were found between the groups in terms of fracture mode (p < 0.001). Greater percentages of the fractures showed mix type failure (85%) for Silorane and adhesive (60%) for Transbond-LR. Microleakage values were lower in low-shrinking composite than the control and this difference was found to be statistically significant (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Low-shrinking composite produced sufficient SBS, WPO and microleakage values on the etched enamel surfaces, when used as a lingual retainer composite.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : King Saud University

References

  1. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4
  2. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Henderson S. Enhancing wire-composite bond strength of bonded retainers with wire surface treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:625-31. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113789
  3. Ramoglu SI, Usumez S, Buyukyilmaz T. Accelerated aging effects on surface hardness and roughness of lingual retainer adhesives. Angle Orthod 2008;78:140-4. https://doi.org/10.2319/112106-473.1
  4. Lutz F, Krejci I, Barbakow F. Quality and durability of marginal adaptation in bonded composite restorations. Dent Mater 1991;7:107-13. https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(91)90055-4
  5. Eick JD, Welch FH. Polymerization shrinkage of posterior composite resins and its possible influence on postoperative sensitivity. Quintessence Int 1986;17:103-11.
  6. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;84:118-32. https://doi.org/10.1177/154405910508400204
  7. Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Ruggeri A, Cadenaro M, Di Lenarda R, De Stefano Dorigo E. Dental adhesion review: aging and stability of the bonded interface. Dent Mater 2008;24:90-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2007.02.009
  8. Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 1. Am J Dent 2002;15:198-210.
  9. Hilton TJ. Can modern restorative procedures and materials reliably seal cavities? In vitro investigations. Part 2. Am J Dent 2002;15:279-89.
  10. Irie M, Suzuki K, Watts DC. Marginal gap formation of light-activated restorative materials: effects of immediate setting shrinkage and bond strength. Dent Mater 2002;18:203-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(01)00083-5
  11. Gladwin MA, Bagby MD. Clinical aspects of dental materials: theory, practice, and cases. Philadelphia, Pa.: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004. p. 47-57.
  12. Guggenberger R, Weinmann W. Exploring beyond methacrylates. Am J Dent 2000;13:82D-84D.
  13. Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:68-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.007
  14. Thalacker C, Heumann A, Weinmann W, Guggenberger R, Luchterhandt T, Syrek A. Marginal integrity of class V silorane and methacrylate composite restorations. J Dent Res 2004;83(Spec Iss A):A1364.
  15. Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Nathwani H, Burke FJ, Randall RC. In vitro cuspal deflection and microleakage of maxillary premolars restored with novel low-shrink dental composites. Dent Mater 2005;21:324-35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.05.005
  16. Gillgrass TJ, Millett DT, Creanor SL, MacKenzie D, Bagg J, Gilmour WH, et al. Fluoride release, microbial inhibition and microleakage pattern of two orthodontic band cements. J Dent 1999;27:455-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0300-5712(99)00003-2
  17. James JW, Miller BH, English JD, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:555-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(02)56938-9
  18. Baysal A, Uysal T, Ulker M, Usumez S. Effects of high-intensity curing lights on microleakage under bonded lingual retainers. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1084-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/110607-520.1
  19. Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S. Different lingual retainer composites and the microleakage between enamel-composite and wire-composite interfaces. Angle Orthod 2008;78:941-6. https://doi.org/10.2319/072707-350.1
  20. Uysal T, Baysal A, Usumez S, Ulker M. Microleakage between composite/wire and composite/enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 1: a comparison of three composites. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:647-51. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp038
  21. Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S. Microleakage between composite-wire and composite-enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 2: comparison of amorphous calcium phosphate-containing adhesive with conventional lingual retainer composite. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:652-7. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp039
  22. Ulker M, Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Ertas H. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets using high-intensity curing lights. Angle Orthod 2009;79:144-9. https://doi.org/10.2319/111607-534.1
  23. Uysal T, Ulker M, Ramoglu SI, Ertas H. Microleakage under metallic and ceramic brackets bonded with orthodontic self-etching primer systems. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1089-94. https://doi.org/10.2319/100507-481.1
  24. Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:67-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70304-4
  25. Taylor MJ, Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent 1992;20:3-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(92)90002-T
  26. Alani AH, Toh CG. Detection of microleakage around dental restorations: a review. Oper Dent 1997;22:173-85.
  27. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8.
  28. Artun J. Caries and periodontal reactions associated with long-term use of different types of bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod 1984;86:112-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90302-6
  29. Oliver RG. The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:196-200. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(88)80003-9
  30. O'Reilly MM, Featherstone JD. Demineralization and remineralization around orthodontic appliances: an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:33-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(87)90293-9
  31. Ogaard B, Rolla G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:68-73. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90453-2