Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer?
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1...
Ausführliche Beschreibung
Gespeichert in:
| Autor*in: |
Lamper, Timea [verfasserIn] Ilie, Nicoleta [verfasserIn] Huth, Karin C. [verfasserIn] Rudzki, Ingrid [verfasserIn] Wichelhaus, Andrea [verfasserIn] Paschos, Ekaterini [verfasserIn] |
|---|
| Format: |
E-Artikel |
|---|---|
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
| Erschienen: |
2013 |
|---|
| Schlagwörter: |
|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
Enthalten in: Clinical Oral Investigations - Springer-Verlag, 2001, 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 |
|---|---|
| Übergeordnetes Werk: |
volume:18 ; year:2013 ; number:1 ; day:14 ; month:02 ; pages:313-319 |
| Links: |
|---|
| DOI / URN: |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |
|---|
| Katalog-ID: |
SPR007806590 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | SPR007806590 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20201124022332.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 201005s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)SPR007806590 | ||
| 035 | |a (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Lamper, Timea |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2013 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a Computermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 520 | |a Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Enamel damage |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Bond strength |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Residual composite |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Adhesion |7 (dpeaa)DE-He213 | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Ilie, Nicoleta |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Huth, Karin C. |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Rudzki, Ingrid |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Wichelhaus, Andrea |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Paschos, Ekaterini |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Clinical Oral Investigations |d Springer-Verlag, 2001 |g 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 |w (DE-627)SPR007794231 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:18 |g year:2013 |g number:1 |g day:14 |g month:02 |g pages:313-319 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |z lizenzpflichtig |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a SYSFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_SPRINGER | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 18 |j 2013 |e 1 |b 14 |c 02 |h 313-319 | ||
| author_variant |
t l tl n i ni k c h kc kch i r ir a w aw e p ep |
|---|---|
| matchkey_str |
lampertimeailienicoletahuthkarincrudzkii:2013----:efthdeiefrhbnigfrhdnibakt |
| hierarchy_sort_str |
2013 |
| publishDate |
2013 |
| allfields |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 doi (DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lamper, Timea verfasserin aut Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? 2013 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ilie, Nicoleta verfasserin aut Huth, Karin C. verfasserin aut Rudzki, Ingrid verfasserin aut Wichelhaus, Andrea verfasserin aut Paschos, Ekaterini verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2013 1 14 02 313-319 |
| spelling |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 doi (DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lamper, Timea verfasserin aut Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? 2013 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ilie, Nicoleta verfasserin aut Huth, Karin C. verfasserin aut Rudzki, Ingrid verfasserin aut Wichelhaus, Andrea verfasserin aut Paschos, Ekaterini verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2013 1 14 02 313-319 |
| allfields_unstemmed |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 doi (DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lamper, Timea verfasserin aut Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? 2013 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ilie, Nicoleta verfasserin aut Huth, Karin C. verfasserin aut Rudzki, Ingrid verfasserin aut Wichelhaus, Andrea verfasserin aut Paschos, Ekaterini verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2013 1 14 02 313-319 |
| allfieldsGer |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 doi (DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lamper, Timea verfasserin aut Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? 2013 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ilie, Nicoleta verfasserin aut Huth, Karin C. verfasserin aut Rudzki, Ingrid verfasserin aut Wichelhaus, Andrea verfasserin aut Paschos, Ekaterini verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2013 1 14 02 313-319 |
| allfieldsSound |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 doi (DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng Lamper, Timea verfasserin aut Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? 2013 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 Ilie, Nicoleta verfasserin aut Huth, Karin C. verfasserin aut Rudzki, Ingrid verfasserin aut Wichelhaus, Andrea verfasserin aut Paschos, Ekaterini verfasserin aut Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations Springer-Verlag, 2001 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 (DE-627)SPR007794231 nnns volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 lizenzpflichtig Volltext GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER AR 18 2013 1 14 02 313-319 |
| language |
English |
| source |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 |
| sourceStr |
Enthalten in Clinical Oral Investigations 18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319 volume:18 year:2013 number:1 day:14 month:02 pages:313-319 |
| format_phy_str_mv |
Article |
| institution |
findex.gbv.de |
| topic_facet |
Enamel damage Bond strength Residual composite Adhesion |
| isfreeaccess_bool |
false |
| container_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| authorswithroles_txt_mv |
Lamper, Timea @@aut@@ Ilie, Nicoleta @@aut@@ Huth, Karin C. @@aut@@ Rudzki, Ingrid @@aut@@ Wichelhaus, Andrea @@aut@@ Paschos, Ekaterini @@aut@@ |
| publishDateDaySort_date |
2013-02-14T00:00:00Z |
| hierarchy_top_id |
SPR007794231 |
| id |
SPR007806590 |
| language_de |
englisch |
| fullrecord |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR007806590</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124022332.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR007806590</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lamper, Timea</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Enamel damage</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bond strength</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residual composite</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Adhesion</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ilie, Nicoleta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huth, Karin C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rudzki, Ingrid</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wichelhaus, Andrea</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paschos, Ekaterini</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:14</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:313-319</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">14</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">313-319</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| author |
Lamper, Timea |
| spellingShingle |
Lamper, Timea misc Enamel damage misc Bond strength misc Residual composite misc Adhesion Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| authorStr |
Lamper, Timea |
| ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv |
@@773@@(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| format |
electronic Article |
| delete_txt_mv |
keep |
| author_role |
aut aut aut aut aut aut |
| collection |
springer |
| remote_str |
true |
| illustrated |
Not Illustrated |
| topic_title |
Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? Enamel damage (dpeaa)DE-He213 Bond strength (dpeaa)DE-He213 Residual composite (dpeaa)DE-He213 Adhesion (dpeaa)DE-He213 |
| topic |
misc Enamel damage misc Bond strength misc Residual composite misc Adhesion |
| topic_unstemmed |
misc Enamel damage misc Bond strength misc Residual composite misc Adhesion |
| topic_browse |
misc Enamel damage misc Bond strength misc Residual composite misc Adhesion |
| format_facet |
Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource |
| format_main_str_mv |
Text Zeitschrift/Artikel |
| carriertype_str_mv |
cr |
| hierarchy_parent_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| hierarchy_parent_id |
SPR007794231 |
| hierarchy_top_title |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| isfreeaccess_txt |
false |
| familylinks_str_mv |
(DE-627)SPR007794231 |
| title |
Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| ctrlnum |
(DE-627)SPR007806590 (SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e |
| title_full |
Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| author_sort |
Lamper, Timea |
| journal |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| journalStr |
Clinical Oral Investigations |
| lang_code |
eng |
| isOA_bool |
false |
| recordtype |
marc |
| publishDateSort |
2013 |
| contenttype_str_mv |
txt |
| container_start_page |
313 |
| author_browse |
Lamper, Timea Ilie, Nicoleta Huth, Karin C. Rudzki, Ingrid Wichelhaus, Andrea Paschos, Ekaterini |
| container_volume |
18 |
| format_se |
Elektronische Aufsätze |
| author-letter |
Lamper, Timea |
| doi_str_mv |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |
| author2-role |
verfasserin |
| title_sort |
self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| title_auth |
Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| abstract |
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. |
| abstractGer |
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. |
| abstract_unstemmed |
Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth. |
| collection_details |
GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_SPRINGER |
| container_issue |
1 |
| title_short |
Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer? |
| url |
https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |
| remote_bool |
true |
| author2 |
Ilie, Nicoleta Huth, Karin C. Rudzki, Ingrid Wichelhaus, Andrea Paschos, Ekaterini |
| author2Str |
Ilie, Nicoleta Huth, Karin C. Rudzki, Ingrid Wichelhaus, Andrea Paschos, Ekaterini |
| ppnlink |
SPR007794231 |
| mediatype_str_mv |
c |
| isOA_txt |
false |
| hochschulschrift_bool |
false |
| doi_str |
10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2 |
| up_date |
2024-07-03T15:21:43.966Z |
| _version_ |
1803571800537300992 |
| fullrecord_marcxml |
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">SPR007806590</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20201124022332.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">201005s2013 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)SPR007806590</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(SPR)s00784-013-0942-2-e</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Lamper, Timea</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: faster, stronger, safer?</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2013</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the performance of accelerating procedures for bonding of orthodontic brackets in vitro by comparing different adhesives (etch-and-rinse, self-etch) and polymerization procedures (curing devices, time). The performance was characterized by three parameters: (1) the bond strength achieved, (2) the incidence of enamel damage, and (3) the extent of residual composite on the tooth. Materials and methods Bracket bonding was performed on 500 extracted human teeth after application of either an etch-and-rinse adhesive or a one-step self-etch adhesive. Two different two-component self-etch adhesives (Clearfil SE and Transbond Plus) and two single-component self-etch adhesives (Ideal and iBond) were investigated after using different polymerization procedures (light-emitting diode for 10 or 20 s or plasma arc curing device for 3 or 6 s). The bond strength, incidence of enamel damage, and extent of residual composite on the tooth were measured. Results Single-component self-etch adhesives gave the lowest bond strengths. No significant difference in bond strength could be detected between the two-component self-etch adhesives and the etch-and-rinse method. There was a 70.3 % risk for enamel damage at bond strengths above 12 MPa, but only 5 % risk below 12 MPa and no risk below 8.2 MPa. The risk of enamel damage increased by an odds ratio increment of 1.3 for each additional MPa above 8.2 MPa. Conclusion Single-component self-etch adhesives showed the lowest bond strengths, caused limited enamel damage, and generally left less residual composite on the tooth. Clinical relevance The nature of the adhesive greatly influences the resultant bond strength, the risk of enamel damage, and the extent of residual composite on the teeth.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Enamel damage</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Bond strength</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Residual composite</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Adhesion</subfield><subfield code="7">(dpeaa)DE-He213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Ilie, Nicoleta</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Huth, Karin C.</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Rudzki, Ingrid</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Wichelhaus, Andrea</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="1" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paschos, Ekaterini</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">Enthalten in</subfield><subfield code="t">Clinical Oral Investigations</subfield><subfield code="d">Springer-Verlag, 2001</subfield><subfield code="g">18(2013), 1 vom: 14. Feb., Seite 313-319</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)SPR007794231</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:18</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2013</subfield><subfield code="g">number:1</subfield><subfield code="g">day:14</subfield><subfield code="g">month:02</subfield><subfield code="g">pages:313-319</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2</subfield><subfield code="z">lizenzpflichtig</subfield><subfield code="3">Volltext</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_SPRINGER</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">18</subfield><subfield code="j">2013</subfield><subfield code="e">1</subfield><subfield code="b">14</subfield><subfield code="c">02</subfield><subfield code="h">313-319</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
|
| score |
7.4018393 |