Displaying all 2 publications

Abstract:
Sort:
  1. Aldossary MS, Abu Hajia SS, Santini A
    Int Orthod, 2018 12;16(4):638-651.
    PMID: 30385291 DOI: 10.1016/j.ortho.2018.09.005
    OBJECTIVE: To measure Total Light Energy (TLE) Transmission through six makes of ceramic orthodontic brackets alone and bracket-plus-adhesive samples, using the MARC™-Resin Calibrator (RC).

    METHODS: Six makes, three each monocrystalline (M) and polycrystalline (P) were used; PureSapphire (M), SPA Aesthetic (M), Ghost (M), Mist (P), Reflections (P), and Dual Ceramic (P). The Ortholux™ Light Curing Unit (LCU) was used to cure the orthodontic adhesive Transbond™XT. The LCU's tip irradiance was measured and TLE transmitted through the ceramic bracket was obtained, then adhesive added to the bracket, and transmitted TLE measured through bracket-plus-adhesive samples. The LCU was set at five seconds as recommended for curing adhesive through ceramic brackets.

    RESULTS: Mean tip irradiance was 1859.2±16.2mW/cm2. The TLE transmitted through brackets alone ranged 1.7 to 3.9J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Pure Sapphire>Reflections>Mist>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. The TLE transmitted through bracket-plus-adhesive samples ranged 1.6 to 3.7J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Mist>Reflections>Pure Sapphire>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. TLE was reduced with the addition of adhesive (range -0.1 to -0.7J/cm2). There was a significant difference for Pure Sapphire, Reflections, and Mist (P<0.05), but not for SPA Aesthetics, Ghost, and Dual Ceramic. There was no overall significant difference between the monocrystalline and polycrystalline makes. The two best makes were of the monocrystalline type, concerning TLE transmission, but with the exception of polycrystalline Dual Ceramic; the next worst make was a monocrystalline bracket, SPA Aesthetics.

    CONCLUSION: Light energy attenuation through ceramic orthodontic brackets is make-dependent, with no overall difference between monocrystalline and polycrystalline brackets. Light energy is further attenuated with the addition of resin-based orthodontic adhesive.

  2. Santini A, Tiu SH, McGuinness NJ, Aldossary MS
    J Orthod, 2016 Sep;43(3):193-201.
    PMID: 27487476 DOI: 10.1080/14653125.2016.1205310
    OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the total light energy (TLE) transmission through three types of ceramic brackets with, bracket alone and with the addition of orthodontic adhesive, at different exposure durations, and to compare the microhardness of the cured adhesive.

    MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different makes of ceramic brackets, Pure Sapphire(M), Clarity™ ADVANCED(P) and Dual Ceramic(P) were used. Eighteen specimens of each make were prepared and allocated to three groups (n = 6). MARC(®)-resin calibrator was used to determine the light curing unit (LCU) tip irradiance (mW/cm(2)) and TLE (J/cm(2)) transmitted through the ceramic brackets, and through ceramic bracket plus Transbond™ XT Light Cure Adhesive, for 5, 10 and 20 s. Vickers-hardness values at the bottom of the cured adhesive were determined. Statistical analysis used one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA); P = 0.05.

    RESULTS: TLE transmission rose significantly among all samples with increasing exposure durations. TLE reaching the adhesive- enamel interface was less than 10 J/cm(2), and through monocrystalline and polycrystalline ceramic brackets was significantly different (P 

Related Terms
Filters
Contact Us

Please provide feedback to Administrator (afdal@afpm.org.my)

External Links