Page 31 - SPEMD_58-4

Revista Portuguesa de Estomatologia,
Medicina Dentária e Cirurgia Maxilofacial

rev port estomatol med dent cir maxilofac. 2017;58(4):219-224

Research

Shear Bond Strength of different accessories
used to traction impacted teeth

b
a,
Matheus Melo Pithon *, Matheus Souza Campos Costa ,
b
b
Heitor Cesár Ribeiro de Almeida Júnior , Ivanderson Santana de Almeida ,
b
Benito Coelho Santana , Raildo da Silva Coqueiro b
a Health I Department, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia – UESB, Jequié, Bahia, Brazil and Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontic
Department Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro-UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
b Health I Department, Universidade Estadual do Sudoeste da Bahia – UESB, Jequié, Bahia, Brazil.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Objectives: To evaluate the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of
Received 28 November 2016 different orthodontic accessories used for applying traction on impacted teeth.
Accepted 29 September 2017 Methods: 120 bovine incisors were used. Initially, all teeth were submitted to prophylaxis,
Available online 20 December 2017 subsequent etching with 37% phosphoric acid, application of adhesive and light polymeri-
zation. Afterwards, these teeth were randomly divided into eight groups: (1) composite lingual
Keywords: button; (2) hook for application of traction on impacted teeth; (3) hook with chain; (4) cleat;
Bond strength (5) brackets; (6) convex lingual button; (7) concave lingual button; and (8) orthodontic mesh.
Impacted The groups were submitted to shear tests in a universal test machine, and ARI evaluation.
Orthodontic appliance Results: The group of orthodontic mesh (8) presented the best shear bond strength results
Tooth with statistically significant differences comparing with the composite lingual button
(p<0.001), hooks for application of traction on impacted teeth (p=0.002), hooks with chain
(p=0.001), cleat (p=0.011), brackets (p< 0.001), convex lingual button (p=0.003) and convex
lingual button (p<0.001). The highest mean ARI values were also obtained for the mesh group,
with statistically significant differences comparing with the composite lingual button
(p=0.008), cleat (p=0.004), brackets (p=0.001), convex lingual button (p=0.017) and concave
lingual button (p=0.005).
Conclusion: The greatest adhesion forces were obtained with the orthodontic mesh, which
was statistically different from all other groups, and the lowest adhesion forces with the
composite lingual button. (Rev Port Estomatol Med Dent Cir Maxilofac. 2017;58(4):219-224)
© 2017 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária.
Publicado por SPEMD. Este é um artigo Open Access sob uma licença CC BY -NC -ND
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by -nc -nd/4.0/).

* Corresponding author.
Correio eletrónico: matheuspithon@gmail.com (Matheus Melo Pithon).
http://doi.org/10.24873/j.rpemd.2017.12.032
1646-2890/© 2017 Sociedade Portuguesa de Estomatologia e Medicina Dentária. Published by SPEMD.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).