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: Microleakage under lingual retainer composite bonded with an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system.
    Author: Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S.
    Journal: World J Orthod; 2009; 10(3):196-201. PubMed ID: 19885420.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the microleakage of a conventional acid-etched, light-cured lingual retainer adhesive system with a recently developed antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive with and without etching. METHODS: Sixty human mandibular incisors were separated into three groups of 20 teeth each, which received the following treatments: group 1 (control) = Transbond LR (3M Unitek), conventional lingual retainer bonding; group 2 = Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray Medical) with acid-etching; and group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond without acid-etching. The wire in each was 0.0215-inch multistranded PentaOne (Masel Orthodontics). Samples were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin, and sectioned. Transverse sections were evaluated under a stereomicroscope and scored for microleakage in millimeters at the composite-enamel interface. Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests with Bonferroni correction. RESULTS: Group 2 had less microleakage (0.11 ± 0.19 mm) than group 1 (0.26 ± 0.30 mm) or group 3 (0.24 ± 0.27 mm). However, the difference in the microleakage of the composite-enamel interface among all investigated groups was not significant (P>.05). CONCLUSION: The findings of this study do not speak against using an antibacterial monomer-containing self-etching adhesive to bond lingual retainers.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]