The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on March 31, 2009
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009 31(4):390-396; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjn126
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Microleakage beneath brackets bonded with flowable materials: effect of thermocycling
* Orthodontic Teaching Unit
** Integral Pediatric Dentistry Teaching Unit, University of Murcia, Spain
Address for correspondence Ascensión Vicente, Orthodontic Teaching Unit, Dental Clinic, University of Murcia, Hospital Morales Meseguer, 2a planta. C/Marqués de los Vélez, s/n, 30008 Murcia, Spain, E-mail: ascenvi{at}um.es
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of thermocycling on microleakage beneath brackets bonded with an orthodontic composite and different flowable materials. Brackets were bonded to 200 bovine incisors divided into five groups: (1) Transbond XT, (2) X-Flow, (3) Dyract-Flow, (4) Admira-Flow, and (5) Beautiful-Flow. Half the teeth in each group were thermocycled. The specimens were dyed with 1 per cent methylene blue for 24 hours to determine the percentage of microleakage into the enamel–adhesive and adhesive–bracket interfaces using image analysis equipment. Data were analysed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U-tests (P < 0.05), applying Bonferroni correction when required (P < 0.005).
Without thermocycling, microleakage at the enamel–adhesive interface was significantly greater for Admira-Flow than for X-Flow (P < 0.005). At the adhesive–bracket interface, there were no significant differences (P > 0.005). After thermocycling, microleakage of Beautiful-Flow at the enamel–adhesive interface was significantly less than for the other materials tested (P < 0.005), while at the adhesive–bracket interface, Admira-Flow and X-Flow showed significantly more microleakage than Beautiful-Flow and Transbond XT (P < 0.005). Analysis of the effect of thermocycling on each material showed that microleakage increased significantly at the enamel–adhesive interface with Transbond XT (P < 0.05), decreased with Beautiful-Flow (P < 0.05), increased significantly at both interfaces with X-Flow, but not to a statistically significant level with Dyract-Flow and Admira-Flow (P > 0.05). The giomer, Beautiful-Flow, demonstrated the best performance after thermocycling, while composite resins and, in particular, the flowables showed a poorer performance.