Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2003; 35(3): 205-212
DOI: 10.1055/s-2003-42320
Originalarbeit

© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Die Oberflächenhärte von Kunststoffen für die Befestigung von lingualen Drahtretainern im Laborversuch und im klinischen Einsatz

Surface hardness of lingual retainer adhesives - laboratory and clinical findingsT. Büyükyilmaz1 , S. Üsümez1
  • 1Department of Orthodontics, Selçuk University, Konya, Turkey
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 September 2003 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel der vorliegenden Studie ist 1) die Ermittlung der optimalen Aushärtungszeit für zwei verschiedene für die Befestigung von lingualen Kleberetainern entwickelte Kompositmaterialien. Dabei wurde mit einer konventionellen und einer leistungsstarken Halogenleuchte sowie mit einer Lichtbogenlampe ausgehärtet und das Ergebnis anhand der Oberflächenhärte nach Vickers ü berprüft. Außerdem wurde 2) überprüft, welche der drei Lichtquellen bei ein und demselben Kompositmaterial eine vergleichbare Oberflächenhärte zur Folge hatte. Als Maß für die Güte der Polymerisation wurde die Oberflächenhärte nach Vickers (HV) untersucht. Bei den verwendeten Lichtpolymerisationsgeräten handelte es sich um ein Power PAC (ADT), eine Lichtbogenlampe, und eine Optilux 501 (Kerr), eine lichtstarke Halogenlampe. Beide Geräte wurden mit einer Ortholux XT (3M), einer konventionellen Halogenleuchte, verglichen. Als kieferorthopädische Kompositmaterialien wurden Transbond Lingual Retainer (3M) und Light Cure Retainer (Reliance) untersucht. Als Gegenprobe diente das Autopolymerisat Concise (3M), sowohl in normal angemischter als auch in einer verdünnten Form. Transbond Lingual Retainer ließ sich mit dem Power PAC innerhalb von 6 Sekunden aushärten, mit der Optilux 501 in 10 Sekunden und mit der konventionellen Halogenlampe in 20 Sekunden. Light Cure Retainer benötigte für die Aushärtung demgegenüber 15 Sekunden mit dem Power PAC, 10 Sekunden mit der Optilux 501 und 40 Sekunden mit der konventionellen Ortholux XT. Die Endhärten nach Vickers betrugen für Transbond Lingual Retainer, Concise normal, Concise verdünnt und Light Cure Retainer 62,8, 52,4, 46,0 bzw. 40,4. Innerhalb der einzelnen Materialgruppen ergaben sich hinsichtlich der Endhärte keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen den verwendeten Polymerisationslampen. Demgegenüber ergaben sich zwischen den einzelnen Kompositmaterialien statistisch signifikante Unterschiede in der Endhärte. Lichtbogenlampen oder lichtstarke Halogenleuchten ermöglichen die Aushärtung von Kompositmaterialien in deutlich kürzerer Zeit, als konventionelle Halogenpolymerisationslampen. Die Endhärte der Oberfläche als Gradmesser für die Güte der Polymerisation scheint für alle drei Geräte vergleichbar zu sein. Daher empfiehlt sich in der Praxis der Einsatz von lichtstarken Halogen- bzw. Lichtbogenlampen zur Verkürzung der Arbeitszeit am Patienten.

Abstract

The present study aims to 1) identify the optimum cure times of 2 different lingual retainer adhesives with a conventional halogen, a fast halogen and a plasma arc light through measurement of Vickers surface hardness and 2) to determine whether different lights produce similar surface hardness values for the same adhesive resin material. The investigated polymerization characteristic was Vickers surface hardness (VHN). The investigated plasma arc curing unit was Power Pac (ADT) and fast halogen was Optilux 501 (Kerr). The conventional curing unit Ortholux XT (3M) was used as baseline. Evaluated orthodontic lingual retainer adhesives were Transbond LR (3M) and Light Cure LR (Reliance). Concise (3M) and diluted Concise were used as baseline. Irradiation with Power Pac for 6 seconds provided polymerization of Transbond LR which could be achieved in 10 sec with Optilux and in 20 sec with the conventional halogen. The minimum curing times were 15 sec for Power Pac, 10 sec for Optilux and 40 sec for conventional halogen when Light Cure LR was used. Final Vickers hardness value of Transbond LR, Concise, diluted Concise and Light Cure LR were 62.8, 52.4, 46.0 and 40.4 respectively. When cured with different polymerization units, the difference in final surface hardness values for each resin were not statistically significant. However, different adhesives demonstrated significantly different surface hardness values. Plasma arc curing or fast halogen units make it possible to polymerize resin composite in much shorter times than conventional curing units, and the surface hardness which is a polymerization characteristic associated with the units does not seem to be lower with fast curing units. Therefore these units are suggested for clinical use to save chair side time.

Schlüsselwörter

Lingualretainer - Oberflächenhärte von Kompositmaterialien

Key words

Lingual retainers - surface hardness values of adhesive resin material

Literatur

  • 1 Little R M, Riedel R A, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;  93 (5) 423-428
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Nanda R S, Nanda S K. Considerations of dentofacial growth in long-term retention and stability: is active retention needed?.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;  101 (4) 297-303
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Angle E A. Treatment of malocclusion of the teeth. 7th ed. Philadelphia: SS White Manufacturing Co., 1907. In: Blake M, Bibby K. Retention and stability: a review of the literature.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;  114 (3) 299-306
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Hawley C A. A removable retainer. Int. J. Orthod. 1919; 2: 291-298. In: Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  108 (2) 207-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Knierim R W. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer.  Angle Orthod. 1973;  43 (2) 218-220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Rubenstein B M. A direct bond maxillary retainer.  J Clin Orthod. 1976;  10 (1) 43
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Carter R N. Simplified direct-bonded retainer.  J Clin Orthod. 1978;  12 (3) 221
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Lubit E C. The bonded lingual retainer.  J Clin Orthod. 1979;  13 (5) 311-313
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee R T. The lower incisor bonded retainer in clinical practice: a three year study.  Br J Orthod. 1981;  8 (1) 15-18
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Zachrisson B U. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers.  Am J Orthod. 1977;  71 (4) 440-448
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Artun J, Zachrisson B U. Improving the handling properties of a composite resin for direct bonding.  Am J Orthod. 1982;  81 (4) 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Zachrisson B U. The bonded lingual retainer and multiple spacing of anterior teeth.  Swed Dent J Suppl. 1982;  15 247-255
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Artun J, Spadafora A T, Shapiro P A, McNeill R W, Chapko M K. Hygiene status associated with different types of bonded, orthodontic canine-to- canine retainers.  J Clin Periodontol. 1987;  14 (2) 89-94
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Zachrisson B U. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3 -3 retainer.  J Clin Orthod. 1995;  29 (1) 39-48
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Oesterle L J, Newman S M, Shellhart W C. Rapid curing of bonding composite with a xenon plasma arc light.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;  119 (6) 610-616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Bearn D R. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;  108 (2) 207-213
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Asmussen E. Restorative resins: hardness and strength vs. quantity of remaining double bonds.  Scand J Dent Res. 1982;  90 (6) 484-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Ferracane J L. Correlation between hardness and degree of conversion during the setting reaction of unfilled dental restorative resins.  Dent Mater. 1985;  1 (1) 11-14
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Rueggeberg F A, Craig R G. Correlation of parameters used to estimate monomer conversion in a light-cured composite.  J Dent Res. 1988;  67 (6) 932-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ferracane J L, Mitchem J C, Condon J R, Todd R. Wear and marginal breakdown of composites with various degrees of cure.  J Dent Res. 1997;  76 (8) 1508-1516
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Pearson G J, Longman C M. Water sorption and solubility of resin-based materials following inadequate polymerization by a visible-light curing system.  J Oral Rehabil. 1989;  16 (1) 57-61
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Caughman W F, Caughman G B, Shiflett R A, Rueggeberg F, Schuster G S. Correlation of cytotoxicity, filler loading and curing time of dental composites.  Biomaterials. 1991;  12 (8) 737-740
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McCabe J F, Carrick T E. Output from visible-light activation units and depth of cure of light-activated composites.  J Dent Res. 1989;  68 (11) 1534-1539
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Taira M, Urabe H, Hirose T, Wakasa K, Yamaki M. Analysis of photo-initiators in visible-light-cured dental composite resins.  J Dent Res. 1988;  67 (1) 24-28
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Hofmann N, Hugo B, Schubert K, Klaiber B. Comparison between a plasma arc light source and conventional halogen curing units regarding flexural strength, modulus, and hardness of photoactivated resin composites.  Clin Oral Investig. 2000;  4 (3) 140-147
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Vargas M A, Cobb D S, Schmit J L. Polymerization of composite resins: argon laser vs. conventional light.  Oper Dent. 1998;  23 (2) 87-93
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Cobb D S, Vargas M A, Rundle T. Physical properties of composites cured with conventional light or argon laser.  Am J Dent. 1996;  9 (5) 199-202
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Meniga A, Tarle Z, Ristic M, Sutalo J, Pichler G. Pulsed blue laser curing of hybrid composite resins.  Biomaterials. 1997;  18 (20) 1349-1354
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Tarle Z, Meniga A, Ristic M, Sutalo J, Pichler G. Polymerization of composites using pulsed laser.  Eur J Oral Sci. 1995;  103 (6) 394-398
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Blankenau R J, Kelsey W P, Powell G L, Shearer G O, Barkmeier W W, Cavel W T. Degree of composite resin polymerization with visible light and argon laser.  Am J Dent. 1991;  4 (1) 40-42
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Hinoura K. Akiyama Y, Miyazaki M, Kuroda T, Onose H. Influence of irradiation sequence on dentin bond of resin inlays.  Oper Dent. 1995;  20 (1) 30-33
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Kurchak M. DeSantos B, Powers J, Turner D. Argon laser for light-curing adhesives.  J Clin Orthod. 1997;  31 (6) 371-374
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Powell G L, Blankenau R J. Effects of argon laser curing on dentin shear bond strengths.  J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1996;  14 (3) 111-113
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Shanthala B M, Munshi A K. Laser vs. visible-light cured composite resin: an in vitro shear bond study.  J Clin Pediatr Dent. 1995;  19 (2) 121-125
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Weinberger S J, Foley T F, McConnell R J, Wright G Z. Bond strengths of two ceramic brackets using argon laser, light, and chemically cured resin systems.  J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1997;  67 (3) 173-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 Powell G L, Anderson J R, Blankenau R J. Laser and curing light induced in vitro pulpal temperature changes.  J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999;  17 (1) 3-5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 Hannig M, Bott B. In-vitro pulp chamber temperature rise during composite resin polymerization with various light-curing sources.  Dent Mater. 1999;  15 (4) 275-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 CRA Newsletter.  2000;  24 (5) 2
    Google Scholar
  • 39 Zach L, Cohen G. Pulp response to externally applied heat.  Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965;  19 515-530
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pohto M, Scheinin A. Microscopic observations on living dental pulp.  Acta Odontol Scand. 1958;  16 303-327
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Miyazaki M, Hattori T, Ichiishi Y, Kondo M, Onose H, Moore B K. Evaluation of curing units used in private dental offices.  Oper Dent. 1998;  23 (2) 50-54
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Leinfelder K F. Ask the expert. What intensity is best in light curing?.  J Am Dent Assoc. 1999;  130 (4) 534
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Berthold M. Plasma arch lights, argon lasers: how they work.  Am Dent Assoc News. 2000;  31 29-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 DeWald J P. Ferracane JL. A comparison of four modes of evaluating depth of cure of light-activated composites.  J Dent Res. 1987;  66 (3) 727-730
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Ferracane J L, Greener E H. The effect of resin formulation on the degree of conversion and mechanical properties of dental restorative resins.  J Biomed Mater Res. 1986;  20 (1) 121-131
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Dahl E H, Zachrisson B U. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainer.  J Clin Orthod. 1991;  25 (10) 619-632
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Bearn D R, McCabe J F, Gordon P H, Aird J C. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface.  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;  111 (1) 67-74
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Draughn R A, Harrison A. Relationship between abrasive wear and microstructure of composite resins.  J Prosthet Dent. 1978;  40 (2) 220-224
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Pilo R, Cardash H S. Post-irradiation polymerization of different anterior and posterior visible light-activated resin composites.  Dent Mater. 1992;  8 (5) 299-304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Dr. Tamer Büyükyilmaz

Gazipasa Bulvarı 43/B

01120 Adana, Turkey

Phone: +90/5 32-4 66 10 55

Fax: +90/3 22-4 53 79 57

Email: tbuyukyilmaz@superonline.com

      >