Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1989-2
Scanning Electron Microscope Appearance of the Enamel/Composite/Bracket Areas Using Different Methods of Surface Enamel Treatment,Composite Mix and Bracket Loading
Minimal plaque retention on and around orthodontic brackets is of paramount importance if iatrogenic tooth damage is to be avoided. This study made use of the scanning electron microscope to examine how variations in composite mix and finishing affected the smoothness and adaptation at the bracket, composite, and enamel interfaces. The study indicated that the optimum choice for good composite/enamel adaptation with a smooth composite surface and good composite/bracket adaptation involves the use of an intermediate unfilled resin layer, a paste/liquid mix of composite placed on a bracket which is optimally loaded, and no excess composite removed with an instrument.
AlstadS. and ZachrissonB. U. (1979) Longitudinal study of periodontal condition associated with orthodontic treatment in adolescents, American Journal of Orthodontics, 76, 277–86.
2.
ArtunJ. and ThylstrupA. (1986) Clinical and scanning electron microscopic study of surface changes of incipient caries lesions after debonding, Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 94, 193–201.
3.
AsmussenE. (1984) Softening of BIS GMA-based polymers by ethanol and by organic acids of plaque, Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 92, 257–61.
4.
AsmussenE. (1985) Clinical relevance of physical chemical and bonding properties of composite resins, Operative Dentistry, 10, 61–73.
5.
CeenR. F. and GwinnettA. J. (1980) Indelible iatrogenic staining of enamel following debonding. A case report, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 14, 713–15.
6.
CorbettJ. A., BrownL. R., KeeneH. J., and HortonI. M. (1981) Comparison of streptococcus mutans concentrations in non-banded and banded orthodontic patients, Journal of Dental Research, 60, 1936–42.
7.
DogonI. L. (1975) Studies demonstrating the need for an intermediary resin of low viscosity for the acid etch technique, Proceedings of the International Symposium on Acid Etch Technique, North Central Publishing Co.St. Paul, Minnesota, pp. 100–8.
8.
GorelickL., GeigerA. M., and GwinnettA. J. (1982) Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding, American Journal of Orthodontics, 81, 93–8.
9.
GrossJ. D., RetiefD. H., and BradleyE. L. (1984) An optimal concentration of phosphoric acid as an etching agent. Part II: Microleakage studies, Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry, 52, 786–9.
10.
GwinnettA. J. and CeenR. F. (1979) Plaque distribution on bonded brackets: A scanning microscope study, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 667–77.
11.
HampS-E., LundströmF., and NymanS. (1982) Periodontal conditions in adolescents subjected to multiband orthodontic treatment with controlled oral hygiene, European Journal of Orthodontics, 4, 77–86.
12.
HocevarR. A. (1977) Direct bonding metal brackets with the Concise-Enamel Bond System, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 11, 473–82.
13.
JörgensenK. D. (1980) Restorative resins: abrasion vs. mechanical properties, Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research, 88, 557–68.
14.
LambrechtsP. and VanherleG. (1982) Observation and comparison of polished composite surfaces with the aid of S.E.M. and profilometer, 1. Following polishing procedures, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, 9, 169–82.
15.
LundströmF. and KrasseB. (1987) Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli frequency in orthodontic patients; the effect of chlorhexidine treatments, European Journal of Orthodontics, 9, 109–16.
16.
MaijerR. and SmithD. C. (1982) Corrosion of orthodontic bracket bases, American Journal of Orthodontics, 81, 43–8.
17.
McCabeJ. F. and StorerR. (1980) Adaptation of resin restorative materials to etched enamel and the interfacial work of fracture, British Dental Journal, 148, 155–9.
18.
MizrahiE. (1983) Surface distribution of enamel opacities following orthodontic treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 84, 323–31.
19.
OliverR. G. (1988) The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive, American Journal of Orthodontics, 93, 196–200.
20.
O'ReillyM. M. and FeatherstoneJ. D. B. (1987) Demineralization and remineralization around orthodontic appliances: An in vivo study, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 92, 33–40.
21.
RetiefD. H. and WoodsE. (1981) Is a low viscosity bonding resin necessary?, Journal of Oral Rehabilitalion, 8, 255–66.
22.
SinclairP. M., BerryC. W., BennetC. L., and IsraelsonH. (1987) Changes in gingiva and gingival flora with bonding and banding, Angle Orthodontist, 57, 271–8.
23.
WeitmanR. T. and EamesE. B. (1975) Plaque accumulation on composite surfaces after various finishing procedures, Journal of the American Dental Association, 19, 101–16.
24.
ZachrissonB. U. (1976) Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment, American Journal of Orthodontics, 69, 285–300.
25.
ZachrissonB. U. (1977) A post-treatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics, American Journal of Orthodontics, 71, 173–89.
26.
ZachrissonB. U. and ArtunJ. (1979) Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 121–37.
27.
ZachrissonB. U. and BrobakkenB. O. (1978) Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives, American Journal of Orthodontics, 74, 62–78.
28.
ZachrissonB. U., HeimgårdE., RuyterI. E., and MjörI. A. (1979) Problems with sealants for bracket bonding, American Journal of Orthodontics, 75, 641–9.
