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: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

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 reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study. | LitMetric

Aim: To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets.

Materials And Methods: Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equal groups to assess three techniques for the removal of residual adhesive from bracket bases: in Group A, each bracket base was sandblasted with aluminum oxide; in Group B, each base was cleaned superficially with a greenstone bur; and in Group B, the bases were thoroughly abraded with a greenstone bur. Subsequently, brackets were rebonded and the SBS and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), plus Tukey and Kruskal-Wallis post-hoc tests ( ≤ 0.05).

Results: The average SBSs were: Group A, 11.75 (±4.83) MPa; Group B, 8.22 (±4.01) MPa; and Group B, 7.54 (±2.85) MPa. No statistically significant differences in SBS were found between Groups A and B( = 0.051) and Groups B and B( = 0.885), but there was a significant difference between Groups A and B( = 0.016). Regarding ARI scores, there were statistically significant differences between Groups A and B( < 0.001) and between B and B( = 0.014), but not between Groups A and B( = 0.068).

Conclusion: All reconditioning methods were found to have a positive effect, but the sandblasting technique performed best. Brackets reconditioned by sandblasting and superficial grinding mainly showed mixed-type failure, while in samples thoroughly reconditioned by greenstone bur, bonding failure occurred predominantly at the adhesive/bracket interface.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674941PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_61_22DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

greenstone bur
12
reconditioning methods
8
bond strength
8
mpa group
8
statistically differences
8
groups
6
group
6
methods bond
4
strength rebonded
4
brackets
4

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!