19 research outputs found
Biomechanical interactions of endodontically treated tooth implant-supported prosthesis under fatigue test with acoustic emission monitoring
Bond strengths of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system applied with and without acid etching for lingual retainer bonding
Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with the custom base indirect bonding technique
Atrial septal defect closure with the new Cardia Ultrasept II™ device with interposed Goretex patch: Mexican experience – has the perforation of Ivalon’s membrane been solved?
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
The Effect of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Application on the Micropush-Out Bond Strength of Fiber Posts to Resin Core Material
Laser-Aided Enamel Conditioning: A Comparison of Microleakage Under Brackets Following Different Aging Procedures
Targeted custom gene panel sequencing for cardiac ion channelopathies: Efficiently detects candidate pathogenic mutations in Long QT syndrome
Surface roughness of orthodontic band cements with different compositions
OBJECTIVES: The present study evaluated comparatively the surface roughness of four orthodontic band cements after storage in various solutions. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eight standardized cylinders were made from 4 materials: zinc phosphate cement (ZP), compomer (C), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and resin cement (RC). Specimens were stored for 24 h in deionized water and immersed in saline (pH 7.0) or 0.1 M lactic acid solution (pH 4.0) for 15 days. Surface roughness readings were taken with a profilometer (Surfcorder SE1200) before and after the storage period. Data were analyzed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (comparison among cements and storage solutions) or paired t-test (comparison before and after the storage period) at 5% significance level. RESULTS: The values for average surface roughness were statistically different (p<0.001) among cements at both baseline and after storage. The roughness values of cements in a decreasing order were ZP>RMGIC>C>R (p<0.001). After 15 days, immersion in lactic acid solution resulted in the highest surface roughness for all cements (p<0.05), except for the RC group (p>0.05). Compared to the current threshold (0.2 µm) related to biofilm accumulation, both RC and C remained below the threshold, even after acidic challenge by immersion in lactic acid solution. CONCLUSIONS: Storage time and immersion in lactic acid solution increased the surface roughness of the majority of the tested cements. RC presented the smoothest surface and it was not influenced by storage conditions
