PubMed · 12365136
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Martin B Goldstein. 2002. Rapid-fire temporary veneers.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12365136/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The most popular techniques for determining the quality of the hybrid layer (HL) have relied on morphologic characterization of the polished adhesive/dentin (a/d) interfaces before and after acid-bleach chemical treatment. Using these techniques, the existence of smooth, acid-resistant layers has been consistently reported for most adhesive systems. The purpose of this study was to determine whether popular specimen preparation techniques that include polishing and acid-bleach treatment modify the a/d interface, mask the complexity of the HL, and lead to inaccurate assessment of the quality of the HL. To understand the impact of specimen preparation techniques on the morphology of the resin-dentin interface, polished and unpolished specimens from the same tooth were closely compared after different acid-bleach chemical treatment procedures. Two one-bottle adhesives, that is, 3M Single Bond and Pulpdent UNO, exhibiting distinct differences in hydrophilic/hydrophobic composition, were used in this investigation. Using specimens from the same tooth, the effect of chemical treatments on the morphology of the resin-dentin interdiffusion zone and the differences in the morphology of polished and unpolished specimens after these same treatments were studied with scanning electron microscopy. It was shown that conventional specimen preparation techniques that include polishing and acid-bleach treatment can adversely affect and even obscure the structural detail of the a/d interface in specimens that possess a porous HL. The results indicated that the Pulpdent UNO/dentin interface had better quality than the 3M Single Bond/dentin interface. The difference in the quality of HL can be attributed to factors such as compositional differences that impact the adhesive interaction with water, that is present within the substrate during wet bonding. The inability of the conventional acid-bleach procedure to reveal the differences in the scanning electron microscopy interfacial morphology was overcome in this investigation by using a multistep technique.
The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with 2 different light-curing units (conventional halogen light and plasma arc light); 83 patients treated with fixed appliances were included in the study. With the "split-mouth" design, each patient's mouth was divided into 4 quadrants. In 42 randomly selected patients, the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured with the halogen light, and the remaining quadrants were cured with the plasma arc light. In the other 41 patients, the quadrants were inverted. A total of 1434 stainless steel brackets were examined: 717 were cured with a conventional halogen light for 20 seconds; the remaining 717 were cured with the plasma arc light for 5 seconds. The number, cause, and date of bracket failures were recorded for each light-curing unit over 12 months. Statistical analysis was performed with the Fisher exact test, the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, and the log-rank test. No statistically significant differences were found between the total bond failure rates of the brackets cured with the halogen light and those cured with the plasma arc light. Neither were significant differences found when the clinical performances of the maxillary versus mandibular arches or the anterior versus posterior segments were compared. These findings demonstrate that plasma arc lights are an advantageous alternative to conventional light curing, because they significantly reduce the curing time of orthodontic brackets without affecting the bond failure rate.
This study assessed the effect of blood contamination on the shear bond strength and bond failure site of 2 different orthodontic primers (Transbond XT and Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer, both from 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) used with adhesive-precoated brackets. Four different enamel surface conditions were tested: (1) dry, (2) blood contamination before priming, (3) blood contamination after priming, and (4) blood contamination before and after priming. Noncontaminated enamel surfaces had the highest bond strengths for both conventional and self-etching primers, which produced almost the same strength values. Under blood-contaminated conditions, both primers showed significantly reduced shear bond strengths. For the conventional primer, no significant differences were reported among the blood-contaminated groups, whereas when the self-etching primer was used, condition 4 reduced significantly the bond strength values. Significant differences in debond locations were found among the groups bonded with the 2 primers under the various enamel surface conditions.