• Something wrong with this record ?

Comparison of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with five different adhesive systems: in vitro study

N. Masarykova, E. Tkadlec, Z. Chlup, J. Vrbsky, A. Brysova, P. Cernochova, L. Izakovicova Holla

. 2023 ; 23 (1) : 637. [pub] 20230905

Language English Country England, Great Britain

Document type Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment is associated with numerous adverse side effects, such as enamel discoloration, demineralization or even caries. The presence of microleakage between the enamel and the adhesive and between the adhesive and the base of the orthodontic bracket allows penetration of the bacteria, molecules, and liquids into the enamel and can lead to unpleasant "white spot lesions" or secondary caries beneath and around the brackets. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate microleakage in five adhesive systems commonly used in orthodontic practice for bonding brackets. METHODS: One hundred extracted premolars were divided into five groups of twenty teeth. Stainless steel Legend medium metal brackets were bonded to teeth using five adhesive systems: resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement GC Fuji Ortho LC (GCF) and composite materials Light Bond (LB), Transbond XT (TB), TrulockTM Light Activated Adhesive (TL), and GC Ortho Connect (GCO). The specimens were subjected to thermal cycling, stained with 2% methylene blue, sectioned with low-speed diamond saw Isomet and evaluated under a digital microscope. Microleakage was detected at the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces from occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models with beta error distribution. RESULTS: Microleakage was observed in all materials, with GCF showing the highest amount of microleakage. Composite materials GCO, TB, and LB exhibited the lowest amount of microleakage with no statistical difference between them, while TL showed a statistically significantly higher amount of microleakage (p < 0.001). The enamel-adhesive interface had more microleakage in all composite materials (GCO, LB, TB, and TL) than the adhesive bracket-interface (p < 0.001). The highest amount of microleakage occurred in the gingival region in all materials. CONCLUSION: Composite materials showed better adhesive properties than a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The presence of microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface facilitates the penetration of various substances into enamel surfaces, causing enamel demineralization and the development of dental caries.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc23016278
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20231101122517.0
007      
ta
008      
231013s2023 enk f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1186/s12903-023-03368-2 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)37670283
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a enk
100    1_
$a Masaryková, Nela $u Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic $7 xx0308647
245    10
$a Comparison of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with five different adhesive systems: in vitro study / $c N. Masarykova, E. Tkadlec, Z. Chlup, J. Vrbsky, A. Brysova, P. Cernochova, L. Izakovicova Holla
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment is associated with numerous adverse side effects, such as enamel discoloration, demineralization or even caries. The presence of microleakage between the enamel and the adhesive and between the adhesive and the base of the orthodontic bracket allows penetration of the bacteria, molecules, and liquids into the enamel and can lead to unpleasant "white spot lesions" or secondary caries beneath and around the brackets. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate microleakage in five adhesive systems commonly used in orthodontic practice for bonding brackets. METHODS: One hundred extracted premolars were divided into five groups of twenty teeth. Stainless steel Legend medium metal brackets were bonded to teeth using five adhesive systems: resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement GC Fuji Ortho LC (GCF) and composite materials Light Bond (LB), Transbond XT (TB), TrulockTM Light Activated Adhesive (TL), and GC Ortho Connect (GCO). The specimens were subjected to thermal cycling, stained with 2% methylene blue, sectioned with low-speed diamond saw Isomet and evaluated under a digital microscope. Microleakage was detected at the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces from occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was performed using generalized linear mixed models with beta error distribution. RESULTS: Microleakage was observed in all materials, with GCF showing the highest amount of microleakage. Composite materials GCO, TB, and LB exhibited the lowest amount of microleakage with no statistical difference between them, while TL showed a statistically significantly higher amount of microleakage (p < 0.001). The enamel-adhesive interface had more microleakage in all composite materials (GCO, LB, TB, and TL) than the adhesive bracket-interface (p < 0.001). The highest amount of microleakage occurred in the gingival region in all materials. CONCLUSION: Composite materials showed better adhesive properties than a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The presence of microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface facilitates the penetration of various substances into enamel surfaces, causing enamel demineralization and the development of dental caries.
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    12
$a ortodontické zámky $7 D016910
650    12
$a zubní kaz $7 D003731
650    _2
$a výzkumný projekt $7 D012107
650    _2
$a zubní sklovina $7 D003743
650    _2
$a skloionomerní cementy $7 D005899
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Tkadlec, Emil $u Faculty of Science, Palacky University Olomouc, 17. listopadu 1192/12, Olomouc, 779 00, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Chlup, Zdenek $u Institute of Physics of Materials of the Czech Academy of Sciences, Žižkova 513/22, Brno, 616 00, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Vrbsky, Jan $u International Clinical Research Center (ICRC), St. Anne's University Hospital, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Brysova, Alena $u Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic
700    1_
$a Cernochova, Pavlina $u Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic. pavlina.cernochova@fnusa.cz
700    1_
$a Izakovicova Holla, Lydie $u Clinic of Stomatology, Institution Shared with St. Anne's University Hospital, Faculty of Medicine, Masaryk University, Pekařská 53, Brno, 656 91, Czech Republic
773    0_
$w MED00006812 $t BMC oral health $x 1472-6831 $g Roč. 23, č. 1 (2023), s. 637
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37670283 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y - $z 0
990    __
$a 20231013 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20231101122513 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 2000036 $s 1202640
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC-MEDLINE
BMC    __
$a 2023 $b 23 $c 1 $d 637 $e 20230905 $i 1472-6831 $m BMC oral health $n BMC Oral Health $x MED00006812
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20231013

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...