Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents

ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clini...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Alencar, Maria de Lourdes Martins Nobrega, Fabio Roberto Dametto, Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos, Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão Pinheiro
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Dental Press Editora
Series:Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512016000600043&lng=en&tlng=en
id doaj-aed6f31f9f984bda9b25a7f26209d354
record_format Article
spelling doaj-aed6f31f9f984bda9b25a7f26209d3542020-11-25T00:43:18ZengDental Press Editora Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics 2177-6709216435010.1590/2177-6709.21.6.043-050.oarS2176-94512016000600043Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agentsEstefania Queiroga de Santana e AlencarMaria de Lourdes Martins NobregaFabio Roberto DamettoPatrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos SantosFabio Henrique de Sá Leitão PinheiroABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. Results: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. Conclusion: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512016000600043&lng=en&tlng=enOrtodontiaResinas compostasLentes
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Alencar
Maria de Lourdes Martins Nobrega
Fabio Roberto Dametto
Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos
Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão Pinheiro
spellingShingle Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Alencar
Maria de Lourdes Martins Nobrega
Fabio Roberto Dametto
Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos
Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão Pinheiro
Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
Ortodontia
Resinas compostas
Lentes
author_facet Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Alencar
Maria de Lourdes Martins Nobrega
Fabio Roberto Dametto
Patrícia Bittencourt Dutra dos Santos
Fabio Henrique de Sá Leitão Pinheiro
author_sort Estefania Queiroga de Santana e Alencar
title Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_short Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_fullStr Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
title_sort comparison of two methods of visual magnification for removal of adhesive flash during bracket placement using two types of orthodontic bonding agents
publisher Dental Press Editora
series Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
issn 2177-6709
description ABSTRACT Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of two methods of visual magnification (operating microscope and light head magnifying glass) for removal of composite flash around orthodontic metal brackets. Material and Methods: Brackets were bonded in the center of the clinical crown of sixty well-preserved human premolars. Half of the sample was bonded with conventional Transbond XT (3M Unitek TM, USA), whereas the other half was bonded with Transbond TM Plus Color Change (3M Unitek TM, USA). For each type of composite, the choice of method to remove the flash was determined by randomly distributing the teeth into the following subgroups: A (removal by naked eye, n = 10), B (removal with the aid of light head magnifying glass, under 4x magnification, n = 10), and C (removal with the aid of an operating microscope, under 40x magnification, n = 10). Brackets were debonded and teeth taken to a scanning electron microscope (SS-x-550, Shimadzu, Japan) for visualization of their buccal surface. Quantification of composite flash was performed with Image Pro Plus software, and values were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test and Dunn’s post-hoc test at 5% significance level. Results: Removal of pigmented orthodontic adhesive with the aid of light head magnifying glass proved, in general, to be advantageous in comparison to all other methods. Conclusion: There was no advantage in using Transbond TM Plus Color Change alone. Further studies are necessary to draw a more definitive conclusion in regards to the benefits of using an operating microscope.
topic Ortodontia
Resinas compostas
Lentes
url http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2176-94512016000600043&lng=en&tlng=en
work_keys_str_mv AT estefaniaqueirogadesantanaealencar comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT mariadelourdesmartinsnobrega comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT fabiorobertodametto comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT patriciabittencourtdutradossantos comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
AT fabiohenriquedesaleitaopinheiro comparisonoftwomethodsofvisualmagnificationforremovalofadhesiveflashduringbracketplacementusingtwotypesoforthodonticbondingagents
_version_ 1725279197389127680