Journal Article

A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as anorthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin

Lars Inge Norevall, Agneta Marcusson and Maurits Persson

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 18, issue 1, pages 373-384
Published in print January 1996 | ISSN: 0141-5387
e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/18.1.373
A clinical evaluation of a glass ionomer cement as anorthodontic bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

GO

Show Summary Details

Preview

SUMMARY

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) has been suggested as an alternative to acrylic resin in bracket bonding because of its fluoride release. The aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate further the suitability of GIC as a bonding adhesive compared with an acrylic resin with regard to frequency of bracket failure, fracture modes and clean-up time after debond-ing.Two commercially available brackets were tested, one with a meshed foil base and the other with an integral base.

A total of 60 patients, with a mean age of 13 years 7 months (range 10 years 8 months to 19 years 1 month) were consecutively selected. Brackets were bonded with a GIC (AquaCem®, DeTrey) and a no-mix diacrylate (Unite®, Unitek Corp.) according to random assignment for each jaw. One group of patients (n=30) was bonded with metal brackets with machine cut groves in the base (DynaLock®, Unitek). In the second group (n=30) brackets with a meshed foil base (Unitwin®, Unitek) were used. Bracket failure location during treatment was recorded as were fracture modes and time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces at debonding.

The frequency of failed brackets was higher with GIC (36per cent) than with the dacrylate (15 per cent). Bracket failues for the cut groove base type occurred in 50 per cent with GIC and 23 per cent with the acrylic, meshed foil bases failed in 22 per cent with GIC and in 7 per cent with the acrylic, respectively. The differences in failure between bracket types were significant at P<0.001 for both bonding materials. Analysis of the fracture modes showed a small but noticeable difference in the strength of adhesion to the enamel surface, favouring GIC. Time required for the clean-up of enamel surfaces showed a significantly shorter debonding time for GIC. It is concluded that the use of a GIC for orthodontic bonding purposes considerably increases the risk of bond failures during treatment, especially in combination with a cut groove base type. One noticeable advantage with GIC bonding, however, is the shorter clean-up time for the enamel surfaces.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.