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

[Comparative study of excess glue around metallic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive system]. | LitMetric

[Comparative study of excess glue around metallic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive system].

Orthod Fr

Service d’ODF, Hôpital de la Timone, 264 rue Saint-Pierre, 13005 Marseille, France

Published: September 2022

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study aimed to compare the amount of excess adhesive flash produced by three different adhesive systems used with orthodontic brackets.
  • One hundred eighty-six human premolars were divided into three groups: conventional uncoated brackets, APC™ pre-coated brackets, and APC™ Flash-Free brackets.
  • Results showed a significant reduction in adhesive flash with the APC Flash-Free system compared to the other two, suggesting it may be a more effective option for orthodontic applications.

Article Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this in vitro study was to determine if there is a significant difference in the excess adhesive flash between the metallic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive system, the APC™ pre-coated adhesive system and a conventional uncoated system.

Materials And Methods: One hundred eighty-six freshly extracted human premolars were randomly and blindly divided into three groups according to the type of brackets. Group A (control group n=60): The conventional uncoated metallic bracket (Victory, 3M Unitek®) with a Transbond XT™ Light Cure Adhesive Paste was used. Group B (n=60): The APC™ II metallic maxillary precoated premolar brackets was used. Group C (n=66) : The metallic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive system without flash clean up was used. Images were taken at 40 magnifications in a dental microscope (Leica M320 for dental, Wetzlar, Germany) then analyzed with the ImageJ software and the area of excess adhesive flash was measured.

Results: The mean percentage was significantly different between the three groups (p<0.001; ANOVA). It was significantly smaller for brackets in the APC Flash-Free group (p<0.001), and the difference was not significant between conventional brackets and APC (p=0.224).

Discussion: The new technique seems to reduce the amount of excessive adhesive around orthodontic brackets.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1684/orthodfr.2022.91DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

metallic apc™
12
apc™ flash-free
12
flash-free adhesive
12
adhesive system
12
excess adhesive
8
adhesive flash
8
conventional uncoated
8
three groups
8
brackets group
8
group n=60
8

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!