Publication:
In Vivo Effect of Antibacterial and Fluoride-Releasing Adhesives on Enamel Demineralization Around Brackets: A Micro-CT Study

dc.authorscopusid55048420600
dc.authorscopusid56569339300
dc.authorscopusid57197763101
dc.contributor.authorOz, Aslihan Zeynep
dc.contributor.authorOz, A.A.
dc.contributor.authorYazıcıoğlu, S.
dc.date.accessioned2020-06-21T13:17:54Z
dc.date.available2020-06-21T13:17:54Z
dc.date.issued2017
dc.departmentOndokuz Mayıs Üniversitesien_US
dc.department-temp[Oz] Aslihan Zeynep, Department of Orthodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Oz] Abdullah Alper, Department of Orthodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkey; [Yazıcıoğlu] Sabahat, Department of Orthodontics, Ondokuz Mayis Üniversitesi, Samsun, Turkeyen_US
dc.description.abstractObjectives: The aim of this in vivo study was to investigate the preventive effect of two different adhesives on enamel demineralization and compare these adhesives with a conventional one. Materials and Methods: Fifteen patients requiring the extraction of their first four premolars for orthodontic treatment were included in the study. One premolar was randomly selected, and an antibacterial monomer-containing and fluoride-releasing adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray Medical, Okayama, Japan) was used for orthodontic bracket bonding. Another premolar was randomly selected, and a fluoride-releasing and recharging orthodontic adhesive (Opal Seal, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, Utah) was used. One premolar was assigned as a control, and a conventional adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was used. The teeth were extracted after 8 weeks, and the demineralization areas of the 45 extracted teeth were analyzed using microcomputed tomography with software. Results: There was no significant difference between the white spot lesion (WSL) rates of the adhesives (P >.05). The volumes of the WSLs varied from 0 to 0.019349 mm3. Although Opal Seal showed the smallest lesion volumes, there was no significant difference in volumetric measurements of the lesions among the groups (P >.05). Conclusions: The findings indicated no significant differences between the preventive effects of the adhesives used in this in vivo study over 8 weeks. © 2017 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.2319/060217-371.1
dc.identifier.endpage846en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-3219
dc.identifier.issn1945-7103
dc.identifier.issue6en_US
dc.identifier.pmid28906138
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85034592773
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage841en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.2319/060217-371.1
dc.identifier.volume87en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000415662100007
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ1
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherAllen Press Inc.en_US
dc.relation.ispartofAngle Orthodontisten_US
dc.relation.journalAngle Orthodontisten_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.subjectMicrocomputed Tomographyen_US
dc.subjectWhite Spot Lesionsen_US
dc.titleIn Vivo Effect of Antibacterial and Fluoride-Releasing Adhesives on Enamel Demineralization Around Brackets: A Micro-CT Studyen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication

Files