Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on October 25, 2009
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009 31(6):647-651; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjp038
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/6/647    most recent
cjp038v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Uysal, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ulker, M.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Uysal, T.
Right arrow Articles by Ulker, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Microleakage between composite–wire and composite–enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 1: comparison of three composites

Tancan Uysal*, Asli Baysal*, Serdar Usumez** and Mustafa Ulker***

* Department of Orthodontics
*** Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Erciyes
** Department of Orthodontics, University of Gaziantep Turkey


  Abstract

The aim of this investigation was to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in microleakage between composite–enamel and composite–wire interfaces, when different composites are used. Forty-five freshly extracted human mandibular incisors separated into three groups were used in the study. Multi-stranded 0.0215 inch diameter wire was bonded to enamel using two conventional (Transbond XT and Transbond LR) and a flowable (Venus Flow) orthodontic composite. The specimens were sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5 per cent basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage at the composite–enamel and composite–wire interfaces from the mesial and distal margins. Statistical analysis was performed using Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests with a Bonferroni correction.

Little or no microleakage was observed between the composite–enamel interfaces for the three investigated composites, and any difference was not statistically significant. However, statistically significant differences were found between microleakage at the composite–wire interface for both the conventional and flowable composite groups (P < 0.001). Flowable composite showed the highest leakage (mean: 4.8 ± 0.8 mm), while Transbond XT (mean: 0.5 ± 0.3 mm) and Transbond LR (mean: 1.1 ± 1.2 mm) showed significantly lower and comparable results. The amount of microleakage at the wire–composite interface was significantly greater than that at the enamel–composite interface of flexible spiral wire retainers (FSWRs). The null hypothesis is therefore rejected. Flowable composites may not be appropriate for bonding FSWRs.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.