Becerra-Sualez JE, Tiznado-Orozco GE, Rojas-García AR, Gutiérrez-Rojo JF

Language: Spanish
References: 20
Page: 1017-1020
PDF size: 154.80 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Objective: To compare the shear strength of the two direct and indirect brace cementation techniques using the values obtained in the shear test. Material and methods: 44 premolars extracted and maintained in deionized water, divided into two groups, group 1: formed by 22 premolars that were used for cementation by indirect technique, group 2: formed by 22 premolars that were used for cementation by direct technique , standard 0.018 ”slot brackets (American Orthodontics) and Opalseal^® adhesive and opal^®bondMV resin (Vamasa) were used. Shear tests were performed at a speed of 1 mm / min on an Ultratester^® (Ultradent) testing machine. Results: The results obtained according to the shear tests, comparing the two techniques of direct and indirect brace cementation, showed statistically significant values that favor the indirect technique, having a significance ‹0.01. Conclusion: the technique of indirect cementation of brackets offers greater resistance to detachment.

REFERENCES

1. Reyes J. Estudio del esmalte dental humano por microscopía electrónica y técnicas afines. Revista latinoamericana de metalurgia y materiales. 2001; 21 (2): 81-85.

2. Reyes J. Observación del esmalte dental humano con microscopia electrónica. Revista Tamé. 2013; 1(3): 90-96.

3. Ramos A. Evaluación del efecto de la humedad en adhesión de brackets a esmalte húmedo versus esmalte seco con seis sistemas adhesivos distintos. Tesis doctoral. Universidad de Granada. España. 2010.

4. Lanata J. Estética y adhesión. 2003 Argentina: Grupo Guía S.A.

5. Dourado A, Reis A. Sistemas adhesivos. Revista de Operatoria Dental y Biomateriales. 2006; 1 (2): 13-28.

6. Lanata EJ. Operatoria Dental. 2011. 2 ed. Buenos aires. Alfaomega. 123-135.

7. Mera MC. Estudio comparativo in vitro de la resistencia a la tracción de brackets metálicos después la utilización o no de flúor tópico (barniz) en dientes bovinos. Universidad Central del Ecuador. Quito, Ecuador. 2014; trabajo de investigación como requisito previo a la obtención del grado académico de odontóloga.

8. Carrillo C. Capa hibrida. Revista Asociación Dental Mexicana. 2005; 62 (5); 181-4.

9. Luque H, Pérez L, Carhuamaca G, Coronado M. Fuerza de adhesión de brackets reacondicionados con diferentes técnicas adheridos repetidas veces en la misma superficie del esmalte. Odontol Sanmarquina. 11(2); 2008: 60-65.

10. Bishara SE, Ortodoncia. (2013). México: McGrawHill.

11. Graber T, Vanarsdall R, Vig K. Ortodoncia: Principios y técnicas actuales. 4ª Ed. España. Elsevier; 2006: 587-610.

12. Thiyagarajah S, Spary S, Rock W. A clinical Comparison of bracket bond failures in assocition with direct and indirect bonding. Journal of Orthodontic. 2006; 33: 198-204.

13. Öztük F, Babacam H, Nalcaci R, Kustarci A. Effects of direct bonding techniques on bond strength and microleakage after thermocycling. Korean J Orthod. 2009; 39(6): 393-401.

14. Thomas R. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod 1979; 13: 93-106.

15. Newman G. Direct and indirect bonding of brackets. Journal of Clinical Orthod. 1974: 264-272.

16. Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strength and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect-bonding resins. The Angle orthodontist.2004; 74(3): 405-9.

17. Daub J, Linn B, Berzins D, Bradley T. Bond Strength of Direct and Indirect Bonded Brackets After Thermocycling. The Angle Orthodontist. 2006; 76(2): 295-300.

18. James B, Berzins D, Dhuru V, Bradley T. A comparison of Bond Strenght Between Direct-and indirect-bonding Methods. Angle Orthod 2006; 76(2):289-294.

19. Linn B, Berzins D, Dhuru V, Bradley T. A comparison of bond strength between direct and indirect bonding methods. The Angle Ortodontist. 2006; 76(2): 289-294.

20. Yi G, Dunn W, Taloumis L. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003; 124 (59): 577-581.