The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on October 25, 2009
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009 31(6):652-657; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjp039
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Microleakage between composite–wire and composite–enamel interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers. Part 2: comparison of amorphous calcium phosphate-containing adhesive with conventional lingual retainer composite
* Department of Orthodontics
** Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Erciyes, Kayseri
*** Department of Orthodontics, University of Gaziantep, Turkey
Address for correspondence Dr Tancan Uysal, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Di
hekimli
i Fakültesi, Ortodonti A.D, Melikgazi, Kampüs, Kayseri 38039, Turkey, E-mail: tancanuysal{at}yahoo.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the microleakage values of a newly developed amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP)-containing adhesive and a conventional lingual retainer composite at the composite–enamel and composite–wire interfaces of flexible spiral wire retainers (FSWRs). Sixty freshly extracted human mandibular incisors separated into three equal groups were used in this study. Multi-stranded 0.0215 inch diameter wire was bonded to enamel using conventional orthodontic adhesive (Transbond LR, 3M Unitek) and ACP-containing composite (Aegis Ortho, Harry J. Bosworth Co.), with or without the use of a primer. 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 analyses were performed with Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests with a Bonferroni correction.
Little or no microleakage was observed between the composite–enamel interface for any of the three groups, and any difference was not statistically significant. The amount of microleakage at the wire–composite interface was higher than that at the enamel–composite interface. Multiple comparison testing showed statistically significant differences in microleakage between Transbond LR and the ACP-containing adhesive used with primer at the composite–enamel and composite–wire interfaces (P < 0.001). ACP-containing adhesive used with primer showed the highest microleakage scores at the composite–enamel (mean: 0.39 ± 0.42 mm) and composite–wire (mean: 1.66 ± 0.47 mm) interfaces. The hypothesis is rejected. The ACP-containing composite used with or without primer showed significantly higher leakage at the composite–wire interface, while conventional lingual retainer composite showed lower microleakage scores.