Journals / Türk Ortodonti Dergisi / 2009 / Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1

In-vitro evaluation of two seal materials on enamel demineralization

İki yüzey koruyucunun mine dem meral izasyonurıa etkilerinin in-vitro değerlendirilmesi

Pages
5–15
Publication Date
2022-11-05
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Pro SealTM and BisCoverTM LV can be considered for use in clinic as an effective method to prevent or reduce demineralization during orthodontic treatment, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene. (Turkish J Orthod 2009;22:5-15)

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effects of two different seal materials, Pro Seal™ and BisCover™ LV on enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic fixed appliances.
📊
Key Findings & Data:After placing the brackets, the teeth were cycled through a demineralization- remineralization procedure for 30 days.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Pro SealTM and BisCoverTM LV can be considered for use in clinic as an effective method to prevent or reduce demineralization during orthodontic treatment, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene. (Turkish J Orthod 2009;22:5-15)
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the effects of two different seal materials, Pro Seal™ and BisCover™ LV on enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic fixed appliances. Sixty noncarious extracted premolars were allocated to three groups of twenty each as Pro Seal™ and BisCover™ LV as the study and Transbond™ XT as the control group. After placing the brackets, the teeth were cycled through a demineralization- remineralization procedure for 30 days. Demineralization of the enamel surface was evaluated quantitatively by cross-sectional microhardness testing. The results reveal that, demineralization in the Pro Seal™ group was significantly less than the other two groups. As for BisCover™ LV group, significantly smaller amount of demineralization was observed than the control group. Pro SealTM and BisCoverTM LV can be considered for use in clinic as an effective method to prevent or reduce demineralization during orthodontic treatment, especially in patients with poor oral hygiene. (Turkish J Orthod 2009;22:5-15)

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, iki farklı rezin yüzey koruyucu olan ProSeal™ ve BisCover ™ LV’ nin braketlerin çevresinde demineralizasyon alanlarının oluşumu üzerine etkilerinin in-vitro olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Çalışmamızda ortodontik tedavi amacı yla çekilmiş 60 adet premolar diş, iki çalışma (ProSeal™, BisCover™ LV) ve bir kontrol grubu (Transbond™ XT) olacak şekilde yirmişerlik üç eşit gruba ayrılmış ve braket uygulandıktan sonra 30 gün süreyle demineralizasyon-remineralizasyon siklusuna tabi tutulmuştur. Mine yüzeyindeki demineralizasyon miktarının belirlenmesi için dişlere kesit mikrosertlik testi uygulanmıştır. Elde edilen test sonuçlarına göre, her bir derinlik için yapılan değerlendirmelerde tüm gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklar tespit edilmiştir. ProSealTM ortodontik tedavi sırasında meydana gelen demineralizasyonun engellenmesinde diğer gruplara göre anlamlı farklar göstermiştir. BisCoverTM LV de kontrol grubuna oranla anlamlı derecede düşük demineralizasyon göstermiştir. Klinikte, ortodontik tedavi gören tüm hastalar için geçerli olmakla birlikte özellikle ağız hijyenini sağlamakta güçlük çeken hastalar için ProSealTM ve BisCoverTM LV kullanımının tedavi sırasında oluşabilecek demineralizasyonun engellenmesinde etkili olabileceği düşünülmektedir. (Türk Ortodonti Dergisi 2009;22:5-15)

🔖

Cite This Article

NALBANTGİL, D., ARUN, T., ACUN, G. (2022). In-vitro evaluation of two seal materials on enamel demineralization. Türk Ortodonti Dergisi, Cilt: 22 - Sayı: 1, 5–15. https://ajindex.com/articles/639476

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (16)

  1. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982;81:93-98
  2. Artun J, Brobakken BO. Prevalence of carious white spot lesions after orthodontic treatment with multibonded appliances. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:229-234
  3. Artun J, Thylstrup A. A3-year clinical and SEM study of surface changes of carious enamel lesions after inactivation. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;95:327- 333
  4. O’Reilly MM, Featherstone JDB, Demineralization and remineralization around orthodontic appliances an in vivo study, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:33-40
  5. Gorton J, Featherstone JDB, In vivo inhibition of demineralization around orthodontic brackets, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:10–14
  6. Gwinnett AJ, Ceen RF. Plaque distribution on bonded brackets. A scanning electron microscope study. Am J Orthod 1979;75:667-677
  7. Ogaard B, Rolla G, Arends J, ten Cate JM. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part II. Prevention and treatment of lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:123-128
  8. Stratemann MW, Shannon IL. Control of decalcification in orthodontic patients by daily self-administrated application of a water-free 0.4 per cent stannous fluoride gel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1974;66:273- 279
  9. Zachrisson BU. Oral hygiene for orthodontic patients. Current concepts and practical advise. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1974;66:487-497
  10. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1978;74:62-78
  11. Ogaard B, Rezk-Lega F, Ruben J, Arends J. Cariostatic effect and fluoride release from a visible light-curing adhesive for bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:303-307
  12. Turner PJ. The clinical evaluation of a fluoride containing orthodontic bonding material. Br J Orthod 1993;20:307-313
  13. Zachrisson BU. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1977;71:173-189
  14. Newman GW. A posttreatment survey of direct bonding of metal brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1978,74:197-206
  15. Zachrisson BU, Heimgard E, Ruyter IE, Mjor IA. Problems with sealants for bracket bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1979;75:641-649
  16. Gillgrass TJ, Creanor SL, Foye RH, Millett DT. Varnish or polymetric coating for the prevention of demineralization? An ex