Search

OBJECTIVE: To assess the adhesive resistance of metallic brackets bonded to temporary crowns made of acrylic resin after different surface treatments. METHODS: 180 specimens were made of Duralay and randomly divided into 6 groups (n = 30) according to surface treatment and bonding material: G1 - surface roughening with Soflex and bonding with Duralay; G2 - roughening with aluminum oxide blasting and bonding with Duralay; G3 - application of monomer and bonding with Duralay; G4 - roughening with Soflex and bonding with Transbond XT; G5 - roughening with aluminum oxide blasting and bonding with Transbond XT and G6: application of monomer and bonding with Transbond. The results were statistically assessed by ANOVA/Games-Howell. RESULTS: The means (MPa) were: G1= 18.04, G2= 22.64, G3= 22.4, G4= 9.71, G5= 11.23, G6= 9.67. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) ranged between 2 and 3 on G1, G2 and G3 whereas in G4, G5 and G6 it ranged from 0 to 1, showing that only the material affects the pattern of adhesive flaw. CONCLUSION: The surface treatment and the material influenced adhesive resistance of brackets bonded to temporary crowns. Roughening by aluminum blasting increased bond strength when compared to Soflex, in the group bonded with Duralay. The bond strength of Duralay acrylic resin was superior to that of Transbond XT composite resin.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the influence of saliva contamination on the bond strength of metallic brackets bonded to enamel with hydrophilic resin composite. METHODS: Eighty premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 20) according to bonding material and contamination: G1) bonded with Transbond XT with no saliva contamination, G2) bonded with Transbond XT with saliva contamination, G3) bonded with Transbond Plus Color Change with no saliva contamination and G4) bonded with Transbond Plus Color Change with saliva contamination. The results were statistically analyzed (ANOVA/Tukey). RESULTS: The means and standard deviations (MPa) were: G1)10.15 ± 3.75; G2) 6.8 ± 2.54; G3) 9.3 ± 3.36; G4) 8.3 ± 2.95. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) ranged between 0 and 1 in G1 and G4. In G2 there was a prevalence of score 0 and similar ARI distribution in G3. CONCLUSION: Saliva contamination reduced bond strength when Transbond XT hydrophobic resin composite was used. However, the hydrophilic resin Transbond Plus Color Change was not affected by the contamination.OBJETIVO: avaliar a influência da contaminação por saliva na resistência de união de braquetes metálicos colados ao esmalte com um compósito resinoso hidrofílico. MÉTODOS: oitenta pré-molares foram divididos aleatoriamente em quatro grupos (n=20), de acordo com o material de colagem e a presença de contaminação - G1) colagem com Transbond XT na ausência de contaminação; G2) colagem com Transbond XT na presença de contaminação; G3) colagem com Transbond Plus Color Change na ausência de contaminação; G4) colagem com Transbond Plus Color Change na presença de contaminação. Os resultados foram tratados estatisticamente (ANOVA/Tukey). RESULTADOS: as médias e desvios-padrão (MPa) foram G1 = 10,15 ± 3,75; G2 = 6,8 ± 2,54; G3 = 9,3 ± 3,36; G4 = 8,3 ± 2,95. O índice de adesivo remanescente (IAR) variou entre 0 e 1 no G1 e no G4; no G2, houve predomínio do escore 0 e distribuição similar no G3. CONCLUSÃO: a contaminação por saliva reduziu a resistência de união no grupo que usou a resina hidrofóbica Transbond XT. Por outro lado, a resina hidrofílica Transbond Plus Color Change não foi influenciada pela contaminação.