Efeito de diferentes protocolos de colagem de bráquetes cerâmicos com LED de alta potência

• Ano de defesa: 2021
• Autor(a) principal: Cruz, Itanielly Dantas Silveira
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte; Brasil; UFRN; PROGRAMA DE PÓS-GRADUAÇÃO EM CIÊNCIAS ODONTOLÓGICAS
• Palavras-chave em Português: Resistência ao cisalhamento; Espectroscopia de infravermelho por transformada de Fourier; Esmalte dentário; Braquetes ortodônticos
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.ufrn.br/handle/123456789/33240

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of different photoactivation protocols on shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets bonded to dental enamel, on bond failure through the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and on the degree of conversion (DC) of a resin using the highpower photo activator Valo™ Cordless® (Ultradent) in Xtra power mode (3.200 mW/cm2). METHODOLOGY: The brackets were bonded (Transbond XT®, 3M Unitek) on 80 crowns of bovine incisors, randomly distributed into two study groups (N=40): monocrystalline brackets (Group 1) and polycrystalline brackets (Group 2). Each group was subdivided into 4 subgroups (n=10) according to the photoactivation protocol used: 3 or 6 seconds in the center; 3s in the mesial/3s in the distal; and 3s in the cervical/3s in the incisal. After storage for 4 months (distilled water/37°C), the shear test (100KgF, 1mm/min) was performed. For DC analysis, 80 resin discs were made with the same photoactivation protocols used in bonding brackets. The SBS (MPa) was evaluated descriptively, using Student's T test, ANOVA one- and two-way and by Tukey's post-test. The DC (%) was assessed descriptively, by ANOVA two-way and by Tukey's post-test. Union failures were classified according to the ARI, analyzed descriptively and by Kruskal-Wallis' test. RESULTS: Regarding the SBS, all protocols in Group 2 and only the photoactivation on the center for 3 seconds of Group 1 presented clinically accepted values; the values were significantly affected (p<0.01) by the type of bracket; and when comparing the corresponding intergroup averages, p=0.003 was observed between the protocols of 6s in the center and p=0.010 between the protocols of 3s in the cervical/3s in the incisal. In the DC evaluation, the values were significantly affected by the photoactivation protocol (p=0.002) and by the interaction between the factors (type of bracket*photoactivation protocol; p=0.033). ARI scores 4 (39.4%; p>0.05) and 3 (72.5%; p=0.001) were predominant in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. CONCLUSION: Caution should be exercised when bonding ceramic brackets with Valo™ Cordless® in Xtra power mode, because high SBSs were observed. SBS and DC might present statistically significant differences depending on the type of bracket and the photoactivation protocol applied. In general, it is suggested to use the polycrystalline bracket to the monocrystalline and apply 3 seconds of photoactivation in the center of the bracket.