dor_id: 59202

506.#.#.a: Público

590.#.#.d: Los artículos enviados a la "Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia", se juzgan por medio de un proceso de revisión por pares

510.0.#.a: Sistema Regional de Información en Línea para Revistas Científicas de América Latina, el Caribe, España y Portugal (Latindex); Medigraphic

561.#.#.u: http://www.odonto.unam.mx/

561.#.#.a: Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

650.#.4.x: Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud

336.#.#.b: article

336.#.#.3: Artículo Técnico-Profesional

336.#.#.a: Artículo

351.#.#.6: https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmo

351.#.#.b: Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia

351.#.#.a: Artículos

harvesting_group: RevistasUNAM

270.1.#.p: Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx

590.#.#.c: Open Journal Systems (OJS)

270.#.#.d: MX

270.1.#.d: México

590.#.#.b: Concentrador

883.#.#.u: https://revistas.unam.mx/catalogo/

883.#.#.a: Revistas UNAM

590.#.#.a: Coordinación de Difusión Cultural

883.#.#.1: https://www.publicaciones.unam.mx/

883.#.#.q: Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial

850.#.#.a: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

856.4.0.u: https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmo/article/view/54152/48194

100.1.#.a: Ramírez Orendain, David

524.#.#.a: Ramírez Orendain, David (2014). Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affi nity in two enamel surface conditions. Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia; Vol. 2 Núm. 2, 2014. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/59202

245.1.0.a: Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affi nity in two enamel surface conditions

502.#.#.c: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

561.1.#.a: Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

264.#.0.c: 2014

264.#.1.c: 2016-01-29

506.1.#.a: La titularidad de los derechos patrimoniales de esta obra pertenece a las instituciones editoras. Su uso se rige por una licencia Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 4.0 Internacional, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es, para un uso diferente consultar al responsable jurídico del repositorio por medio del correo electrónico revistamexicanadeortodoncia@gmail.com

884.#.#.k: https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmo/article/view/54152

001.#.#.#: 120.oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/54152

041.#.7.h: spa

520.3.#.a: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with two systems of hydrophilic adhesives: (I) a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Smartbond, International Gestenco) and (II) a composite system (Transbond XT and Transbond™ IPM) in two enamel conditions: dry and artifi cial saliva contaminated. Materials and methods: 100 extracted premolars were stored in distilled water at 4 degrees Celsius. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and convenience distributed into 5 groups: (1) composite resin in enamel under dry conditions, (2) cyanoacrylate adhesive in dry enamel condition, (3) composite resin in enamel condition contaminated with artifi cial saliva before the primer, (4) composite resin enamel condition contaminated with artifi cial saliva after the primer, and (5) cyanoacrylate adhesive in artifi cial saliva contaminated enamel condition. The results showed that the adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP obtained the highest values of resistance to debonding in the dry enamel surface. Conclusions: The adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP I provide an adequate in vitro resistance to debonding in every enamel condition. The system based on cyanoacrylate adhesive Smartbond obtained proper values of resistance to debonding in dry enamel, however it obtained the lowest values in contaminated with enamel artificial saliva conditions, unsuitable for orthodontics, and even some samples were not cemented successfully in vitro under these conditions.Key words: Hydrophilic adhesive, orthodontic bracket, shear bond strength, cyanoacrylate adhesive, Smartbond

773.1.#.t: Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia; Vol. 2 Núm. 2 (2014)

773.1.#.o: https://revistas.unam.mx/index.php/rmo

022.#.#.a: ISSN: 2395-9215

310.#.#.a: Trimestral

264.#.1.b: Facultad de Odontología, UNAM

doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S2395-9215(16)30133-7

handle: 3195d981fc273404

harvesting_date: 2023-06-20 16:00:00.0

856.#.0.q: application/pdf

last_modified: 2023-06-20 16:00:00

license_url: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode.es

license_type: by-nc-nd

_deleted_conflicts: 2-e7781696a6a554c2abd59e9fc08fc412

No entro en nada

No entro en nada 2

Artículo

Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affi nity in two enamel surface conditions

Ramírez Orendain, David

Facultad de Odontología, UNAM, publicado en Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia, y cosechado de Revistas UNAM

Licencia de uso

Procedencia del contenido

Entidad o dependencia
Facultad de Odontología, UNAM
Revista
Repositorio
Contacto
Revistas UNAM. Dirección General de Publicaciones y Fomento Editorial, UNAM en revistas@unam.mx

Cita

Ramírez Orendain, David (2014). Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affi nity in two enamel surface conditions. Revista Mexicana de Ortodoncia; Vol. 2 Núm. 2, 2014. Recuperado de https://repositorio.unam.mx/contenidos/59202

Descripción del recurso

Autor(es)
Ramírez Orendain, David
Tipo
Artículo Técnico-Profesional
Área del conocimiento
Medicina y Ciencias de la Salud
Título
Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affi nity in two enamel surface conditions
Fecha
2016-01-29
Resumen
The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with two systems of hydrophilic adhesives: (I) a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Smartbond, International Gestenco) and (II) a composite system (Transbond XT and Transbond™ IPM) in two enamel conditions: dry and artifi cial saliva contaminated. Materials and methods: 100 extracted premolars were stored in distilled water at 4 degrees Celsius. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and convenience distributed into 5 groups: (1) composite resin in enamel under dry conditions, (2) cyanoacrylate adhesive in dry enamel condition, (3) composite resin in enamel condition contaminated with artifi cial saliva before the primer, (4) composite resin enamel condition contaminated with artifi cial saliva after the primer, and (5) cyanoacrylate adhesive in artifi cial saliva contaminated enamel condition. The results showed that the adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP obtained the highest values of resistance to debonding in the dry enamel surface. Conclusions: The adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP I provide an adequate in vitro resistance to debonding in every enamel condition. The system based on cyanoacrylate adhesive Smartbond obtained proper values of resistance to debonding in dry enamel, however it obtained the lowest values in contaminated with enamel artificial saliva conditions, unsuitable for orthodontics, and even some samples were not cemented successfully in vitro under these conditions.Key words: Hydrophilic adhesive, orthodontic bracket, shear bond strength, cyanoacrylate adhesive, Smartbond
Idioma
spa
ISSN
ISSN: 2395-9215

Enlaces