Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.
The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure. Brackets were bonded, using both materials, in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro. A total of 225 teeth, 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group, were tested. Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months, and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the materials. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate (7.96%) than the glass ionomer cement (50.89%), regardless of the dental arch tested. Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite, it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.
Miguel
J A
JA
State University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Almeida
M A
MA
Chevitarese
O
O
D000293:Adolescent; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D002648:Child; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods*; D003738:Dental Cements; D005260:Female; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008277:Magnesium Oxide; D008297:Male; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D011076:Polycarboxylate Cement; D015034:Zinc Oxide
D003738:Dental Cements; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D011076:Polycarboxylate Cement; D008277:Magnesium Oxide; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; C040235:Ketac-cem; D015034:Zinc Oxide