Comparison of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with five different adhesive systems: in vitro study.
Adhesive
Bracket
Demineralization
Microleakage
Orthodontics
Thermal cycling
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 09 2023
05 09 2023
Historique:
received:
03
06
2023
accepted:
29
08
2023
medline:
7
9
2023
pubmed:
6
9
2023
entrez:
5
9
2023
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
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. 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), Trulock™ 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
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), Trulock™ 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37670283
doi: 10.1186/s12903-023-03368-2
pii: 10.1186/s12903-023-03368-2
pmc: PMC10478400
doi:
Substances chimiques
Glass Ionomer Cements
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
637Informations de copyright
© 2023. BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature.
Références
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2012 Sep 01;13(5):644-9
pubmed: 23250168
J Esthet Restor Dent. 2013 Apr;25(2):85-95
pubmed: 23617380
J Dent (Tehran). 2015 Feb;12(2):118-24
pubmed: 26056521
Dent Mater. 2019 Jan;35(1):e1-e22
pubmed: 30554830
Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2019 Jul 10;7(13):2162-2166
pubmed: 31456846
Int J Nanomedicine. 2016 Sep 19;11:4743-4763
pubmed: 27695330
J Dent (Tehran). 2015 Jun;12(6):436-46
pubmed: 26884778
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Jan;93(1):29-37
pubmed: 3276146
J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021 Jun 1;22(6):620-623
pubmed: 34393117
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987 Jul;92(1):33-40
pubmed: 3300270
J Am Dent Assoc. 1966 Dec;73(6):1324-36
pubmed: 5223952
Eur J Dent. 2013 Jul;7(3):284-288
pubmed: 24926207
Caries Res. 2005 Jan-Feb;39(1):41-7
pubmed: 15591733
Eur J Dent. 2015 Jan-Mar;9(1):117-121
pubmed: 25713494
J Dent Res. 1976 May-Jun;55(3):441-51
pubmed: 1063755
Dent Clin North Am. 1992 Jul;36(3):693-711
pubmed: 1397431
Eur J Orthod. 2009 Aug;31(4):390-6
pubmed: 19336628
Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1089-94
pubmed: 18947278
Contemp Clin Dent. 2017 Jan-Mar;8(1):11-19
pubmed: 28566845
J Orofac Orthop. 2013 Mar;74(2):102-12
pubmed: 23463300
J Dent. 1997 Nov;25(6):435-40
pubmed: 9604575
J Am Dent Assoc. 1952 Mar;44(3):288-95
pubmed: 14897614
Dent Mater. 2011 Sep;27(9):855-69
pubmed: 21703673
J Am Dent Assoc. 2008 May;139 Suppl:25S-34S
pubmed: 18460677
Angle Orthod. 2006 Nov;76(6):1028-34
pubmed: 17090167
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):144-9
pubmed: 19123715
J Dent Res. 2004 Jun;83(6):454-8
pubmed: 15153451
J Appl Oral Sci. 2009 Sep-Oct;17(5):446-50
pubmed: 19936524
Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021 Sep 25;18:72
pubmed: 34760063
J Prosthet Dent. 1992 Mar;67(3):325-7
pubmed: 1507094
J Dent Res. 1987 Aug;66(8):1336-9
pubmed: 3476602
F1000Res. 2020 Mar 9;9:171
pubmed: 32201577
Int J Mol Sci. 2022 Apr 29;23(9):
pubmed: 35563344
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):259-63
pubmed: 19752016
Eur J Dent. 2017 Apr-Jun;11(2):180-185
pubmed: 28729789
Dent Clin North Am. 2017 Oct;61(4):669-687
pubmed: 28886763
Angle Orthod. 2009 Jan;79(1):138-43
pubmed: 19123712
F1000Res. 2017 Sep 14;6:1688
pubmed: 29118975
Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):361-366
pubmed: 30166827
Angle Orthod. 2006 May;76(3):470-4
pubmed: 16637729