These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effects of sealant and self-etching primer on enamel decalcification. Part II: an in-vivo study.
    Author: Ghiz MA, Ngan P, Kao E, Martin C, Gunel E.
    Journal: Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 2009 Feb; 135(2):206-13. PubMed ID: 19201328.
    Abstract:
    INTRODUCTION: A self-etching primer (SEP) saves valuable time by eliminating the many steps required to etch, rinse, and place a sealant before application of the adhesive and placement of the bracket. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of a conventional etch and sealant (CES) and a SEP on enamel decalcification in vivo. METHODS: Twenty-five patients who required comprehensive orthodontic treatment were included in this study. Before bonding, enamel surfaces were treated with either a CES (Light Bond, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) or a SEP (Transbond Plus, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) by using a split-arch technique. At the end of the observation period (18-24 months), the O'Leary plaque index was used to determine patients' oral-hygiene compliance, and enamel decalcification around the orthodontic bracket was scored based on the amount and severity of decalcification. Scanning electron microscopy images and x-ray spectrum analysis were performed to examine the etched pattern of the 2 bonding systems. Data were analyzed by using analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey-Kramer test; the confidence level was set at a significant level of P = 0.05. RESULTS: Significantly higher decalcification scores were found in the SEP group (27.5%) compared with the CES group (13.9%, P <0.001). No significant differences were found in the decalcification scores for teeth in the maxillary and mandibular arches. Significant differences were found between level of hygiene and decalcification (P <0.0001). Patients with fair or poor hygiene compliance had higher decalcification scores in the SEP group than in the CES group. CONCLUSIONS: Using a SEP might save chair time and improve cost-effectiveness, but it provides less resistance to enamel decalcification than a CES, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]