Microleakage beneath brackets bonded with flowable materials: effect of thermocycling

Vicente Hernández, Ascensión; Ortiz Ruiz, Antonio José; Bravo González, Luis Alberto

Publication:
Microleakage beneath brackets bonded with flowable materials: effect of thermocycling

dc.contributor.author	Vicente Hernández, Ascensión
dc.contributor.author	Ortiz Ruiz, Antonio José
dc.contributor.author	Bravo González, Luis Alberto
dc.contributor.department	Dermatología, Estomatología, Radiología y Medicina Física
dc.date.accessioned	2024-06-26T08:37:41Z
dc.date.available	2024-06-26T08:37:41Z
dc.date.issued	2009-03-31
dc.description	© The Author 2009. This document is the Published version of a Published Work that appeared in final form in European Journal of Orthodontics (EJO). To access the final edited and published work see https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn126
dc.description.abstract	The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of thermocycling on microleakage beneath brackets bonded with an orthodontic composite and different flowable materials. Brackets were bonded to 200 bovine incisors divided into five groups: (1) Transbond XT, (2) X-Flow, (3) Dyract-Flow, (4) Admira-Flow, and (5) Beautiful-Flow. Half the teeth in each group were thermocycled. The specimens were dyed with 1 per cent methylene blue for 24 hours to determine the percentage of microleakage into the enamel–adhesive and adhesive–bracket interfaces using image analysis equipment. Data were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests (P < 0.05), applying Bonferroni correction when required (P < 0.005). Without thermocycling, microleakage at the enamel–adhesive interface was significantly greater for Admira-Flow than for X-Flow (P < 0.005). At the adhesive–bracket interface, there were no significant differences (P > .005). After thermocycling, microleakage of Beautiful-Flow at the enamel–adhesive interface was significantly less than for the other materials tested (P < .005), while at the adhesive–bracket interface, Admira-Flow and X-Flow showed significantly more microleakage than Beautiful-Flow and Transbond XT (P < 0.005). Analysis of the effect of thermocycling on each material showed that microleakage increased significantly at the enamel–adhesive interface with Transbond XT (P < 0.05), decreased with Beautiful-Flow (P < 0.05), increased significantly at both interfaces with X-Flow, but not to a statistically significant level with Dyract-Flow and Admira-Flow (P > 0.05). The giomer, Beautiful-Flow, demonstrated the best performance after thermocycling, while composite resins and, in particular, the flowables showed a poorer performance.	es
dc.format	application/pdf	es
dc.format.extent	6	es
dc.identifier.citation	European Journal of Orthodontics, 31 Mar 2009, 31(4):390-396
dc.identifier.doi	https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjn126
dc.identifier.issn	Print: 0141-5387
dc.identifier.issn	Electronic: 1460-2210
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10201/142705
dc.language	eng	es
dc.publisher	Oxford University Press	es
dc.relation	Sin financiación externa a la Universidad	es
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess	es
dc.subject	Adhesives	es
dc.subject	Cattle	es
dc.subject	Composite resins	es
dc.subject	Dental enamel	es
dc.subject	Incisors	es
dc.subject	methylene blue	es
dc.subject	Teeth	es
dc.subject	Fluid flow	es
dc.title	Microleakage beneath brackets bonded with flowable materials: effect of thermocycling	es
dc.type	info:eu-repo/semantics/article	es
dspace.entity.type	Publication	es