Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars

Tracy Herion, Jack Ferracane, David Covell

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Objectives of this study were to (1) compare the mean shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic bands luted to porcelain molar denture teeth with glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or compomer cement; (2) assess the amount of cement remaining on the teeth after debanding; and (3) compare the survival times of the cemented bands subject to mechanical fatigue. Materials and Methods: Sixty banded denture teeth (20 per cement group) were used to determine shear-peel bond strength, and 30 banded denture teeth (10 per cement group) were used to determine fatigue survival time. Shear-peel bond strength was determined with a universal testing machine, and groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth after band removal was scored, and a chi-square test was used to compare groups. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill, and a log-rank test was used to compare differences in survival times. Results: No differences were found in mean shear-peel bond strength among the three groups. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth varied between the compomer and GIC groups (P = .01), with more compomer cement remaining relative to GIC. The mean survival times of bands cemented with compomer or RMGIC were longer than for bands cemented with GIC (P <.001). Conclusion: The findings show that on porcelain teeth the band cements have comparable mean shear-peel bond strengths, but that band retention with RMGIC and compomer cement are superior to GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical fatigue.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)94-99
Number of pages6
JournalAngle Orthodontist
Volume77
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 2007

Fingerprint

Glass Ionomer Cements
Dental Porcelain
Orthodontics
Compomers
Tooth
Fatigue
Dentures
Chi-Square Distribution
Analysis of Variance

Keywords

  • Ball mill
  • Bands
  • Compomer
  • Glass ionomer
  • Porcelain
  • Resin-modified glass ionomer

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars. / Herion, Tracy; Ferracane, Jack; Covell, David.

In: Angle Orthodontist, Vol. 77, No. 1, 01.2007, p. 94-99.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Herion, Tracy ; Ferracane, Jack ; Covell, David. / Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars. In: Angle Orthodontist. 2007 ; Vol. 77, No. 1. pp. 94-99.
@article{c19604e9be8a4b64b4d945c9b297ecad,
title = "Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars",
abstract = "Objective: Objectives of this study were to (1) compare the mean shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic bands luted to porcelain molar denture teeth with glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or compomer cement; (2) assess the amount of cement remaining on the teeth after debanding; and (3) compare the survival times of the cemented bands subject to mechanical fatigue. Materials and Methods: Sixty banded denture teeth (20 per cement group) were used to determine shear-peel bond strength, and 30 banded denture teeth (10 per cement group) were used to determine fatigue survival time. Shear-peel bond strength was determined with a universal testing machine, and groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth after band removal was scored, and a chi-square test was used to compare groups. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill, and a log-rank test was used to compare differences in survival times. Results: No differences were found in mean shear-peel bond strength among the three groups. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth varied between the compomer and GIC groups (P = .01), with more compomer cement remaining relative to GIC. The mean survival times of bands cemented with compomer or RMGIC were longer than for bands cemented with GIC (P <.001). Conclusion: The findings show that on porcelain teeth the band cements have comparable mean shear-peel bond strengths, but that band retention with RMGIC and compomer cement are superior to GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical fatigue.",
keywords = "Ball mill, Bands, Compomer, Glass ionomer, Porcelain, Resin-modified glass ionomer",
author = "Tracy Herion and Jack Ferracane and David Covell",
year = "2007",
month = "1",
doi = "10.2319/100505-350R.1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "77",
pages = "94--99",
journal = "Angle Orthodontist",
issn = "0003-3219",
publisher = "E H Angle Orthodontists Research & Education Foundation, Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars

AU - Herion, Tracy

AU - Ferracane, Jack

AU - Covell, David

PY - 2007/1

Y1 - 2007/1

N2 - Objective: Objectives of this study were to (1) compare the mean shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic bands luted to porcelain molar denture teeth with glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or compomer cement; (2) assess the amount of cement remaining on the teeth after debanding; and (3) compare the survival times of the cemented bands subject to mechanical fatigue. Materials and Methods: Sixty banded denture teeth (20 per cement group) were used to determine shear-peel bond strength, and 30 banded denture teeth (10 per cement group) were used to determine fatigue survival time. Shear-peel bond strength was determined with a universal testing machine, and groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth after band removal was scored, and a chi-square test was used to compare groups. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill, and a log-rank test was used to compare differences in survival times. Results: No differences were found in mean shear-peel bond strength among the three groups. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth varied between the compomer and GIC groups (P = .01), with more compomer cement remaining relative to GIC. The mean survival times of bands cemented with compomer or RMGIC were longer than for bands cemented with GIC (P <.001). Conclusion: The findings show that on porcelain teeth the band cements have comparable mean shear-peel bond strengths, but that band retention with RMGIC and compomer cement are superior to GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical fatigue.

AB - Objective: Objectives of this study were to (1) compare the mean shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic bands luted to porcelain molar denture teeth with glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC), or compomer cement; (2) assess the amount of cement remaining on the teeth after debanding; and (3) compare the survival times of the cemented bands subject to mechanical fatigue. Materials and Methods: Sixty banded denture teeth (20 per cement group) were used to determine shear-peel bond strength, and 30 banded denture teeth (10 per cement group) were used to determine fatigue survival time. Shear-peel bond strength was determined with a universal testing machine, and groups were compared by one-way analysis of variance. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth after band removal was scored, and a chi-square test was used to compare groups. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill, and a log-rank test was used to compare differences in survival times. Results: No differences were found in mean shear-peel bond strength among the three groups. The amount of cement remaining on the teeth varied between the compomer and GIC groups (P = .01), with more compomer cement remaining relative to GIC. The mean survival times of bands cemented with compomer or RMGIC were longer than for bands cemented with GIC (P <.001). Conclusion: The findings show that on porcelain teeth the band cements have comparable mean shear-peel bond strengths, but that band retention with RMGIC and compomer cement are superior to GIC when subjected to simulated mechanical fatigue.

KW - Ball mill

KW - Bands

KW - Compomer

KW - Glass ionomer

KW - Porcelain

KW - Resin-modified glass ionomer

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33846034001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33846034001&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2319/100505-350R.1

DO - 10.2319/100505-350R.1

M3 - Article

VL - 77

SP - 94

EP - 99

JO - Angle Orthodontist

JF - Angle Orthodontist

SN - 0003-3219

IS - 1

ER -