A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

The effect of different bracket base cleaning method on shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to evaluate how different cleaning methods for orthodontic bracket bases affect their shear bond strength (SBS) when rebonded.
  • Eighty brackets were tested, with initial bonding measuring a control group (G1), followed by testing methods including using a carbide bur (G2), ultrasonic scaler (G3), and sandblasting (G4) after debonding.
  • Results showed no significant differences in SBS or adhesive remnant index (ARI) among the cleaning methods, suggesting that slow speed carbide bur and ultrasonic scaler are effective and economical options for cleaning brackets before rebonding.

Article Abstract

Aim: To assess the effect of different bracket base conditioning method on shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets.

Materials And Methods: Eighty brackets were bonded to freshly extracted premolar teeth using light cured composite adhesive. SBS was measured for 20 random samples as control group (G1). After debonding, 60 debonded brackets were allocated randomly into three groups of bracket base conditioning methods to remove the remaining adhesives. G2: bracket base cleaned with slow speed round carbide bur (CB), G3: cleaned with ultrasonic scaler (US), G4: cleaned with sandblasting (SB). After that, brackets were rebonded in the same manner as frst bonding and SBS was measured. Modifed adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recorded for all groups.

Results: SBS for new brackets was 11.95 MPa followed by 11.65 MPa for G2, 11.56 MPa for G4 and 11.04 MPa for G3 group. There were no statistically signifcant differences between all groups (p = 0.946). In all groups, failure mode showed that the majority of adhesive composite remained on the bracket base with ARI of 4. There was no statistically signifcant difference between all groups in ARI (p = 0.584).

Conclusion: In-offce methods; slow speed CB and US are effective, quick and cheap methods for bracket base cleaning for rebonding.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1417DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

bracket base
24
base cleaning
8
method shear
8
shear bond
8
bond strength
8
base conditioning
8
sbs measured
8
slow speed
8
statistically signifcant
8
bracket
6

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!