Authors' response

Benson, Philip; Alexander-Abt, Jonathan; Cotter, Stephen; Dyer, Fiona M V; Fenesha, Fatma; Patel, Anjli; Campbell, Ciara; Crowley, Niamh; Millett, Declan T

doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.03.013

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A small of resin in addition to a photo initiator was added to conventional glass ionomer cement. [4,9] Fuji Ortho LC bonding system is a light-cured resin-reinforced GIC adhesive. It has an pastes or oral rinses used by the patient.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[3] Fluoride has been proven to lower the occurrence of demineralization, mostly by encouraging remineralization, in addition to maintaining good dental hygiene and reducing the intake of fermentable carbohydrates. [4] Glass ionomer cements can be advantageous as they are less damaging to enamel as they have low solubility, fluoride releasing capability. [5] Resin particles were then added to their formulation in glass ionomer cement to create resin modified glass ionomers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Failure Rate Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Composite- A Randomized Control Trial

Sawant,

Gulve,

Nehete

et al. 2023

IJOrthoR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Successful orthodontic treatment depends on the adhesive used for bonding orthodontic brackets and patient cooperation. Resin based adhesives are conventionally used but have drawbacks like white spot lesions and technique sensitivity. To overcome these problems, Resin modified glass ionomer cements (RMGIC) were introduced to utilise the fluoride releasing characteristic of GIC. Aim: To compare and evaluate bond failure rate and type of bond failure between brackets bonded with RMGIC and composite. Materials and methods: 25 patients undergoing orthodontic treatment were included and evaluated for 6 months. Bonding was done with RMGIC and composite. Patients were recalled every month and bond failure rate and type of bond failure was evaluated. Results: A total of 526 teeth were bonded out of which 263 were bonded with RMGIC and 263 with composite. Statistical analysis was done with Chi-square test (p>0.05). Maximum debonding was seen in RMGIC group (6.46%) compared to composite (3.42%). Maximum debonding was seen in 1st molars bonded with RMGIC (35.3%). Majority bond failure type observed was Adhesive enamel failure in brackets bonded with RMGIC. Conclusion: From the study, it can be concluded that bond failure was commonly seen in RMGIC group in comparison with composite group. Adhesive enamel failure was the most commonly seen bracket failure type. RMGIC had majority bracket failure but within acceptable range and hence can be used as a substitute adhesive for bonding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%