Author(s): Ireland AJ, Sherriff M
Abstract Share this page
Abstract OBJECTIVE: Pumicing of the enamel prior to direct bonding with conventional diacrylate bonding agents has been shown to be unnecessary. It is not known whether this is also the case with resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cements. The aims of this study were two-fold: (a). to determine whether pumicing prior to bonding has an effect on the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC; (b). to determine whether there is a difference in the in vivo failure of brackets bonded with either Right-On or Fuji II LC. Design A cross-mouth controlled clinical trial was performed on a total of 60 patients in which the variables under test were pumicing or not pumicing of the enamel prior to bonding using two different bonding agents. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The measurement variable was bond failure over an 18-month period. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Prior pumicing of the enamel has no effect on in vivo failure when using either a conventional diacrylate or a resin modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement. A greater number of bonds failed with the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cement.
This article was published in J Orthod
and referenced in Dentistry