Singh Shivani, Haque Irfanul, Kavanakudy Bilu S, Parambil Mohamed Ht, Soans Crystal R
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Hazaribag College of Dental Sciences and Hospital, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand, India.
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2024 Aug 1;25(8):722-725. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3696.
The aim of the current study was to assess the microleakage below orthodontic brackets after bonding with three different adhesive materials.
In total, 75 healthy human premolars that had been extracted for orthodontic treatment were utilized in this investigation. The samples were divided into three groups of 25 samples randomly. Premolar brackets with stainless steel bondable 0.022 slot pre-adjusted edgewise appliances were utilized. Group I: Brackets bonded with Nanocomposite Filtek Z350 XT, group II: brackets bonded with Transbond XT, group III: brackets bonded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement-GC Fuji Ortho LC. A surveyor applied a 200 g weight to each bracket, making minor adjustments to ensure the adhesive thickness was consistent. Thermocycling was then carried out for 1000 cycles at 5 ± 2°C to 55 ± 2°C with a dwell time of 30 s and a transfer time of 5 s. The samples were incubated in a 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for a day. Every sample was inspected using a stereomicroscope with a ×16 magnification. The data were collected and analyzed.
The least microleakage was found in Transbond XT adhesive group (1.84 ± 0.12), followed by Filtek Z350 XT (1.96 ± 0.08) and GC Fuji Ortho LC (2.44 ± 0.10) group. There was a highly significant difference between the different adhesive agent groups. There was a statistically significant difference found between Filtek Z350 XT vs GC Fuji Ortho LC and Transbond XT vs GC Fuji Ortho LC with a mean difference of -0.48 and 0.60, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between Filtek Z350 XT vs Transbond XT with a mean difference of 0.12.
Within the limitation, the present study concluded that the Transbond XT showed better adhesive properties and least microleakage compared with Filtek Z350 XT and GC Fuji Ortho LC.
There are many undesirable side effects of orthodontic therapy, including cavities, demineralization, and discoloration of the enamel. Unpleasant "white-spot lesions" or secondary caries under and around the brackets can result from microleakage between the adhesive and the base of the orthodontic bracket as well as between the adhesive and the enamel. How to cite this article: Singh S, Brajendu, Haque I, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage below the Orthodontic Brackets after Bonding with Various Adhesive Agents: An Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):722-725.
本研究旨在评估三种不同粘结材料粘结正畸托槽后的微渗漏情况。
本研究共使用了75颗因正畸治疗而拔除的健康人前磨牙。将样本随机分为三组，每组25个样本。使用带有可粘结不锈钢的0.022英寸槽沟预调整方丝弓矫治器的前磨牙托槽。第一组：用纳米复合树脂Filtek Z350 XT粘结托槽；第二组：用Transbond XT粘结托槽；第三组：用树脂增强玻璃离子水门汀-GC Fuji Ortho LC粘结托槽。用测量仪对每个托槽施加200克重量，并进行微调以确保粘结剂厚度一致。然后在5±2°C至55±2°C下进行1000次热循环，停留时间为30秒，转移时间为5秒。将样本在0.5%碱性品红溶液中孵育一天。使用放大倍数为×16的体视显微镜检查每个样本。收集并分析数据。
Transbond XT粘结剂组的微渗漏最少（1.84±0.12），其次是Filtek Z350 XT（1.96±0.08）和GC Fuji Ortho LC组（2.44±0.10）。不同粘结剂组之间存在高度显著差异。Filtek Z350 XT与GC Fuji Ortho LC以及Transbond XT与GC Fuji Ortho LC之间存在统计学显著差异,平均差异分别为-0.48和0.60。然而，Filtek Z350 XT与Transbond XT之间无显著差异，平均差异为0.12。
在本研究的局限性范围内，与Filtek Z350 XT和GC Fuji Ortho LC相比,Transbond XT表现出更好的粘结性能和最少的微渗漏。
正畸治疗有许多不良副作用，包括龋洞、脱矿和牙釉质变色。正畸托槽底部与粘结剂之间以及粘结剂与牙釉质之间的微渗漏可导致托槽下方及周围出现令人不悦的“白斑病变”或继发龋。如何引用本文：Singh S, Brajendu, Haque I等。不同粘结剂粘结正畸托槽后微渗漏的比较评价：一项研究。《当代牙科实践杂志》2024；25(8):722 - 725。
