RESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this article was to review the fluoride release and uptake ability of some restorative materials which are used for minimally invasive procedures. METHODS: The literature search on published researches and review articles were carried out by using PubMed, Trip and Cochrane library databases. The search terms used were fluoride, restorative materials, atraumatic restorative treatment or ART, glass ionomer or GIC, resin modified glass ionomer cement or RMGIC. The articles included were between 2000 and 2015. CONCLUSION: Fluoride release varies with m factors including the type of restorative materials used and also the media in which it is stored. Fluoride uptake is dependent on the type of the cement and the availability of fluoride including fluoride releasing capacity in the material.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate orthodontic debonding methods by comparing the surface roughness and enamel morphology of teeth after applying two different debonding methods and three different polishing techniques. METHODS: Forty eight human maxillary premolars, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were randomly divided into three groups. Brackets were bonded to teeth with RMGIC (Fuji Ortho LC, GC, Tokyo, Japan) (two groups, n = 18 each) after acid etching (30s), light cured for 40 s, exposed to thermocycling, then underwent 2 different bracket debonding methods: debonding pliers (Shinye, Hangzhou, China) or enamel chisel (Jinzhong, Shanghai, China); the third group (n = 12) comprised of untreated controls, with normal enamel surface roughness. In each debonded group, three cleanup techniques (n = 6 each) were tested, including (I) diamond bur (TC11EF, MANI, Tochigi, Japan) and One-Gloss (Midi, Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), (II) a Super-Snap disk (Shofu, Kyoto, Japan), and (III) One-Gloss polisher. The debonding methods were compared using the modified adhesive remnant index (ARI, 1-5). Cleanup efficiencies were assessed by recording operating times. Enamel surfaces were qualitatively and quantitatively evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and surface roughness tester, respectively. Two surface roughness variables were evaluated: Ra (average roughness) and Rz (10-point height of irregularities). RESULTS: The ARI scores of debonded teeth were similar with debonding pliers and enamel chisel (Chi-square = 2.19, P > 0.05). There were significant differences between mean operating time in each group (F = 52.615, P < 0.01). The diamond bur + One-Gloss took the shortest operating time (37.92 ± 3.82 s), followed by the Super-Snap disk (56.67 ± 7.52 s), and the One-Gloss polisher (63.50 ± 6.99 s). SEM appearance provided by the One-Gloss polisher was the closest to the intact enamel surface, and surface roughness (Ra: 0.082 ± 0.046 µm; Rz: 0.499 ± 0.200 µm) was closest to the original enamel (Ra: 0.073 ± 0.048 µm; Rz: 0.438 ± 0.213 µm); the next best was the Super-Snap disk (Ra: 0.141 ± 0.073 µm; Rz: 1.156 ± 0.755 µm); then, the diamond bur + One-Gloss (Ra: 0.443 ± 0.172 µm; Rz: 2.202 ± 0.791 µm). CONCLUSIONS: Debonding pliers were safer than enamel chisels for removing brackets. Cleanup with One-Gloss polisher provided enamel surfaces closest to the intact enamel, but took more time, and Super-Snap disks provided acceptable enamel surfaces and efficiencies. The diamond bur was not suitable for removing adhesive remnant.
Asunto(s)
Desconsolidación Dental/métodos , Esmalte Dental/ultraestructura , Pulido Dental/métodos , Soportes Ortodóncicos , Grabado Ácido Dental , Diente Premolar/ultraestructura , Cementos Dentales , Instrumentos Dentales , Pulido Dental/efectos adversos , Diamante , Humanos , Técnicas In Vitro , Microscopía Electrónica de Rastreo , Distribución Aleatoria , Propiedades de SuperficieRESUMEN
AIM: To compare and evaluate the root reinforcement potential of four different intraorifice barriers: Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), fiber-reinforced composite (FRC), and nanohybrid composite (NC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five mandibular premolars were decoronated to a standardized length, and prepared and obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer. Except for control specimens, the coronal 3-mm gutta-percha was removed and filled with different materials. The specimens (75) were divided into five groups (n = 15) on the basis of the intraorifice barrier material used. Group 1: MTA, Group 2: RMGIC, Group 3: FRC, Group 4: NC, Group 5: no barrier (control). Fracture resistance of the specimens was tested. RESULTS: Fracture resistance of roots was significantly affected by the type of intraorifice barrier used and the following pattern was observed: RMGIC > FRC > NC > MTA. CONCLUSION: Intraorifice barriers can be regarded as a viable choice to reduce the occurrence of postendodontic root fractures. Among the four tested materials, RMGIC showed the maximum reinforcement.