4.3 Article

Microleakage under Ceramic and Metallic Brackets Bonded with Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer

Journal

ANGLE ORTHODONTIST
Volume 79, Issue 1, Pages 138-143

Publisher

E H ANGLE EDUCATION RESEARCH FOUNDATION, INC
DOI: 10.2319/102607-508.1

Keywords

Microleakage; Glass-ionomer; Adhesive; Metallic; Ceramic

Funding

  1. Medifarm and 3M-Unitek

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference between the microleakage of adhesive interferences at the occlusal and gingival margins of both ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer and a conventional adhesive. Materials and Methods: Sixty freshly extracted human maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 teeth each. Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded to groups 1 and 2 with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive (RMGIA). Metal and ceramic brackets were bonded to group 3 and group 4 with a conventional adhesive (CA) system. A dye-penetration method was used for microleakage evaluation. Microleakage from the occlusal and gingival margins was determined by a stereomicroscope for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test with a Bonferroni correction. Results: The gingival side of all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with the occlusal side for both adhesive interfaces. All bracket and adhesive combinations displayed statistically significant differences in microleakage between the enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides of the brackets (P < .001). When the adhesive systems were compared, the RMGIA showed more microleakage than the CA between the different interfaces. Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. RMGIA results in more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79:138-143.)

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available