RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The removal of residual resins is a routine procedure in orthodontic clinics and of great importance to the final result of the treatment. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the main methods of residual resin removal used by orthodontists, and the main reasons for choosing these methods. METHODS: A questionnaire consisting of 21 questions: 6 relating to demographic data and the other 15 relating to two methods used to remove residual resins (drills or pliers) was sent by e-mail to orthodontists registered with the Regional Councils of Dentistry of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) within April and June, 2023. Questionnaires were sent back by 153 professionals. RESULTS: Residual resin removal is always carried out with high speed drill for 44.7% of the sample, and with low speed drill for 28.7%; 61.3% use irrigation. The multi-laminate carbide bur is used by 82.5% of orthodontists. Pliers are always used by 12.4%. Resin-removing pliers with Widia are used in 39% of cases. The use of high speed was justified by the shorter working time, and the choice of pliers was justified by the smaller damage to the tooth enamel. CONCLUSION: The most used residual resin removal method was the multi-laminate carbide bur at high speed with irrigation, justified the by shorter working time.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

ABSTRACT Introduction: The removal of residual resins is a routine procedure in orthodontic clinics and of great importance to the final result of the treatment. Objective: To evaluate the main methods of residual resin removal used by orthodontists, and the main reasons for choosing these methods. Methods: A questionnaire consisting of 21 questions: 6 relating to demographic data and the other 15 relating to two methods used to remove residual resins (drills or pliers) was sent by e-mail to orthodontists registered with the Regional Councils of Dentistry of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro (Brazil) within April and June, 2023. Questionnaires were sent back by 153 professionals. Results: Residual resin removal is always carried out with high speed drill for 44.7% of the sample, and with low speed drill for 28.7%; 61.3% use irrigation. The multi-laminate carbide bur is used by 82.5% of orthodontists. Pliers are always used by 12.4%. Resin-removing pliers with Widia are used in 39% of cases. The use of high speed was justified by the shorter working time, and the choice of pliers was justified by the smaller damage to the tooth enamel. Conclusion: The most used residual resin removal method was the multi-laminate carbide bur at high speed with irrigation, justified the by shorter working time.

RESUMO Introdução: A remoção de resinas residuais é um procedimento rotineiro na clínica ortodôntica e de grande importância para o resultado final do tratamento. Objetivo: Avaliar os principais métodos para remoção de resinas residuais utilizados por ortodontistas e os principais motivos para a escolha desses métodos. Métodos: Um questionário composto por 21 perguntas: 6 relativas aos dados demográficos e 15 relativas aos métodos de remoção de resinas residuais (brocas ou alicates) foi enviado por e-mail para ortodontistas dos conselhos regionais de São Paulo e Rio de Janeiro entre os meses de abril e junho de 2023, com o total de 153 respostas. Resultados: A remoção de resinas residuais é realizada sempre com brocas em alta rotação para 44,7% da amostra e em baixa rotação para 28,7%; 61,3% utilizam irrigação. A broca carbide multilaminada é utilizada por 82,5% dos ortodontistas. Os alicates são sempre utilizados por 12,4%. O alicate removedor de resina com Wídea é utilizado em 39% dos casos. O uso da alta rotação foi justificado pelo menor tempo de trabalho e a escolha por alicates, justificada pelos menores danos ao esmalte. Conclusão: O método de remoção de resinas residual mais utilizado foi a broca carbide multilaminada em alta rotação com irrigação, justificado pelo menor tempo de trabalho.

RESUMEN

Aim: The purpose of this study was to investigate the biofilm effect on the hybrid ceramic-resin cement bond strength (BS) by comparing two methods. Methods: Teeth were distributed into groups (n=5), according to the resin cement (Maxcem Elite-(MC) or NX3 Nexus-(NX)) and degradation method (24h or 7 days in distilled water; 7 or 30 days incubated with biofilm and 30 days in sterile media). Treated surfaces of Vita Enamic blocks (5x6x7mm) were luted to treated or no treated dentin surfaces and light-cured. After 24h, beams were obtained (1x1x10mm) and stored accordingly. The flexural bond strength (FBS) was assessed by four-point bending test. Additional beams were obtained from new teeth (n=5), stored for 24h or 7 days in distilled water, and submitted to a microtensile bond strength (µTBS) assay. Failure modes were determined by scanning electron microscopy (100X). The flexure strength of the cements (n=10) was assessed by a four-point bending test. Data were analyzed by 1 and 2-ways ANOVA, and Tukey's test (α=0.05). Results: There was no significant difference between the degradation methods for the FBS groups. For the µTBS, the significant difference was as follows: NX 7days > NX 24h > MC 7days = MC 24h. Failure mode was mainly adhesive and mixed, but with an increase of cohesive within cement and pre-failures for the MC groups assessed by µTBS. NX had better performance than MC, regardless of the method. Conclusions: The biofilm had no effect on the materials BS and FBS test was a useful method to evaluate BS of materials with poor performance

Asunto(s)