No abstract

Introduction: With the increased popularity of implants, orthodontists are in search of a better material. Titanium-gold (Ti-Au) is a newer material and could be a choice to replace the currently popular titanium-aluminum-vanadium (Ti-6Al-4Va) alloy. Materials and Methods: Using the finite element analysis method, three-dimensional computer-aided models of a mini-implant was designed. Two cylindrical bone pieces into which the implant was inserted were used. A force magnitude of 5 N was then horizontally and separately applied to the implant head. Results: Comparison of the maximum von Mises stress in the implants of Ti-6Al-4Va and Ti-Au was done. The maximum stress value of 252.356 and 242.415 Mpa, as well as maximum deformation of 0.025 mm and 0.019 mm, on Ti-6Al-4Va and Ti-Au can be observed, respectively. Conclusion: It was found that the maximum stress and maximum deformation values were lower in Ti-Au as compared to Ti-6Al-4Va implant. As the Ti-Au implant has greater resistance to deformation, it can be concluded that this newer alloy has better strength than Ti-6Al-4Va implant.

No abstract

Aim:The purposes of this study were to determine the influence of chemical-cure adhesives and light-cure adhesives on the stain susceptibility after debonding and the effects of different clean-up procedures on the stain susceptibility after debonding.Materials and methods: Seventy teeth specimens were randomly divided into seven groups of 10 teeth-Group 1: no bonding (control group), Group 2: bonding with light-cure adhe sive, i.e. transbond XT and finishing with carbide bur after debonding, Group 3: bonding with transbond XT and finishing with carbide bur and polishing with pumice and rubber cup after debon ding, Group 4: bonding with transbond XT and finishing with Sof-Lex disks after debonding, Group 5: bonding with chemical-cure adhesive, i.e. unite and finishing with carbide bur after debonding, Group 6: bonding with unite and finishing with carbide bur and polishing with pumice and rubber cup after debonding, Group 7: bonding with unite and followed by debonding and finishing with Sof-Lex disks after debonding. The color parameters were measured on spectrophotometer before bonding and after methylene blue staining following debonding and clean-up procedures.Results: Comparing each clean-up procedure in both adhesive systems, color change for Group 6 (19.59) was significantly higher than Group 3 (15.00) (p < 0.05). No significant color change was observed between control group (14.01) and Group 3 (15.00) (p > 0.05). Conclusion:Chemical-cure adhesive showed higher stain susceptibility than light-cure adhesive in all clean-up procedures. Both adhesives would show less stain susceptibility with polishing step with rubber cup and pumice.

No abstract