Espinosa-Cristóbal LF, Fornelli-Martín CLF, Nava-Martínez SD, Constandse-Cortés DA, Zaragoza-Contreras EA, Donohue-Cornejo A, Cuevas-González JC, Cadena-Payán DL

Language: Spanish
References: 27
Page: 14-23
PDF size: 2229.23 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: dental fluorosis (DF) is an alteration characterized by structural and optical changes in dental enamel. The new proposals in orthodontics have allowed the attachment of appliances to obtain more precise and predictable dental movements. However, adhesion capacity during orthodontic appliance placement has been limited by the presence of structural alterations of the adamantine tissue, such as the presence of dental fluorosis. Despite the different alternatives in the adhesion of orthodontic appliances available, there is limited information to suggest the use of new adhesion alternatives when fluorotic dental tissues are involved. Objective: the objective of this study was to determine the level of adhesion of sodium hypochlorite on surfaces with healthy and fluorotic dental enamel. Material and methods: 35 dental organs with different degrees of fluorosis (healthy, mild, moderate, and severe) were divided into two groups (with deproteinization and without deproteinization) and were treated with 5.24% sodium hypochlorite prior to conventional acid etching (experimental group) and then, was compared with the group without the sodium hypochlorite solution (control group). The eviction resistance tests were determined through shear tests in a universal force machine and the topographic analysis was carried out with the use of scanning electron microscopy. Results: the deproteinization technique with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite statistically obtained better adhesion levels in healthy dental enamel compared to the conventional technique (p < 0.05); however, the levels of resistance to eviction at the different levels of fluorosis were statistically similar (p > 0.05). Conclusion: the use of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite could represent a tool to improve adhesion in orthodontic appliances, especially in healthy dental enamel.

REFERENCES

1. Kokich VO, Kokich VG, Kiyak HA. Perceptions of dental professionals and laypersons to altered dental esthetics: asymmetric and symmetric situations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130 (2): 141-151. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.017

2. Katona TR, Long RW. Effect of loading mode on bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with 2 systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129 (1): 60-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.020

3. Noble J, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78 (2): 357-360. doi: 10.2319/020207-53.1.

4. Levy SM. An update on fluorides and fluorosis. J Can Dent Assoc. 2003; 69 (5): 286-291.

5. Appleton J, Chesters J, Kierdorf U, Kierdorf H. Changes in the structure of dentine from cheek teeth of deer chronically exposed to high levels of environmental fluoride. Cells Tissues Organs. 2000; 167 (4): 266-272. doi: 10.1159/000016789.

6. Aoba T, Fejerskov O. Dental fluorosis: chemistry and biology. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med. 2002; 13 (2): 155-170. doi: 10.1177/154411130201300206.

7. Ermis RB, De Munck J, Cardoso MV, Coutinho E, Van Landuyt KL, Poitevin A et al. Bonding to ground versus unground enamel in fluorosed teeth. Dent Mater. 2007; 23 (10): 1250-1255. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.11.005.

8. Betancourt-Lineares A, Irigoyen-Camacho ME, Mejía-González A, Zepeda-Zapeda M, Sánchez-Pérez L. Prevalencia de fluorosis dental en localidades mexicanas ubicadas en 27 estados y el D.F. a seis anos de la publicación de la Norma Oficial Mexicana para la fluoruración de la sal [Dental fluorosis prevalence in Mexican localities of 27 states and the D.F.: six years after the publication of the Salt Fluoridation Mexican Official Regulation]. Rev Invest Clin. 2013; 65 (3): 237-247.

9. Pelossi PL, Kwint A. Resistencia adhesiva de Brackets cementados con un sistema autoacondicionante de bajo ph TT. [Shear bond strength with a low ph self-etching adhesive bonded brackets]. Ortodoncia. 2007; 70 (141): 58-62.

10. Sierant ML, Bartlett JD. Stress response pathways in ameloblasts: implications for amelogenesis and dental fluorosis. Cells. 2012; 1 (3): 631-645. doi: 10.3390/cells1030631.

11. Kumari Cm, Bhat Km, Bansal R. Evaluation of surface roughness of different restorative composites after polishing using atomic force microscopy. Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2016 19 (1): 56-62. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.173200.

12. Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjaderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M et al. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011; 27 (1): 1-16. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016

13. Sonis AL, Snell W. An evaluation of a fluoride-releasing, visible light-activated bonding system for orthodontic bracket placement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989; 95 (4): 306-311. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(89)90163-7.

14. Busscher HJ, Retief DH, Arends J. Relationship between surface-free energies of dental resins and bond strengths to etched enamel. Dent Mater. 1987; 3 (2): 60-63. doi: 10.1016/s0109-5641(87)80004-0.

15. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, Ceja I, Saadia M. Enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching: an in vitro study. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2008; 33 (1): 13-19. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.33.1.ng5462w5746j766p.

16. Gómez S, Bravo P, Morales R, Romero A, Oyarzún A. Resin penetration in artificial enamel carious lesions after using sodium hypochlorite as a deproteinization agent. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2014; 39 (1): 51-56. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.39.1.e72570275387527r.

17. Cárdenas FA, Flores RH, Gordillo MA, Castanedo CJP, Pozos GAJ. Clinical efficacy of 5% sodium hypochlorite for removal of stains caused by dental fluorosis. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2009; 33 (3): 187-191. doi: 10.17796/jcpd.33.3.c6282t1054584157.

18. Isci D, Sahin Saglam AM, Alkis H, Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T. Effects of fluorosis on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod. 2011; 33 (2): 161-166. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjq063.

19. Thylstrup A, Fejerskov O. Clinical appearance of dental fluorosis in permanent teeth in relation to histologic changes. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1978; 6 (6): 315-328. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.1978.tb01173.x.

20. Pereira TB, Jansen WC, Pithon MM, Souki BQ, Tanaka OM, Oliveira DD. Effects of enamel deproteinization on bracket bonding with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Eur J Orthod. 2013; 35 (4): 442-446. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjs006.

21. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Rabelero M, Ceja I. Resistencia al desprendimiento de la resina al esmalte desproteinizado y grabado; Estudio de microtensión. Rev Oper Dental y Biomater. 2014; 3 (2): 1-6.

22. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Rabelero M, Ceja I. Detachment resistance to resin and deproteinized and etch enamel; microtensile study. Rev Oper Dent y Biomater. 2014; 3: 1-15

23. Eimar H, Siciliano R, Abdallah MN, Nader SA, Amin WM, Martinez PP et al. Hydrogen peroxide whitens teeth by oxidizing the organic structure. J Dent. 2012; 40 Suppl 2: e25-33. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2012.08.008.

24. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2 (3): 171-178. doi: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666

25. Newman RA, Newman GV, Sengupta A. In vitro bond strengths of resin modified glass ionomer cements and composite resin self-cure adhesives: introduction of an adhesive system with increased bond strength and inhibition of decalcification. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71 (4): 312-317. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0312:IVBSOR>2.0.CO;2.

26. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod. 2001; 71 (2): 141-148. doi: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0141:OIVBSC>2.0.CO;2.

27. Bincos C, Caballero A, Fernández A, Rivera J, Tanaka E. Caballero Bincos Comparación de la fuerza de adhesión y el tipo de falla entre dos cementos de resina para ortodoncia. Univ Mil Nueva Granada-Fundación CIEO Univ Odontológica. 2011; 30 (65): 31-39.