Effect of enamel surface treatment on the bond strength of metallic brackets in rebonding process.

Bond failure after rebonding for newly placed brackets can be reduced by appropriate enamel surface treatment. This in vitro study investigated the effect of two enamel surface treatments on the bond strength of metallic brackets in the rebonding process. After debonding the brackets and removing the residual adhesive on the enamel surface of 50 upper premolar teeth, the teeth were divided into two equal groups. In the first group, the enamel surface was etched with phosphoric acid 37 per cent, and in the second group, the teeth were sandblasted prior to acid etching. After bonding of the new brackets, the shear bond strength (SBS), probability of bond failures, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined and compared with the t-test, Weibull analysis, and chi-square test. Mean SBS in both groups did not differ significantly (P = 0.081). Most bond failures occurred with ARI scores of 2 and 3, and the difference between the two groups was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Weibull analysis showed that for a given stress, the probability of failure differed between groups. Enamel surface preparation with sandblasting prior to acid etching did not significantly improve SBS in bracket rebonding and left more residual adhesive remnants on the enamel surface.

Evaluation of the effect of buccal corridor size on smile attractiveness.

INTRODUCTION: an attractive smile helps people feel more self-confident and look younger. One of the more controversial aspects of smile attractiveness pertains to buccal corridor size. There is no previous study by those with artistic knowledge that has assessed the asthetic considerations of buccal corridor size. The purpose of this study was to observe whether the size of buccal corridors has an impact on smile attractiveness evaluated by lay people, dental students, and art students. MATERIALS AND METHODS: colored post-treatment photograph with posed smiles of two subjects (one male, one female) were selected. The maxillary posterior dentitions were digitally altered to produce different buccal corridor sizes: narrow (28% buccal corridor), medium-narrow (22% buccal corridor), medium-broad (10% buccal corridor), and broad (2% buccal corridor). The 5 images of each subject were paired into 11 possible combinations and presented to three group: art students, dental students, and lay people, who compared the two images in each pair of smile attractiveness. The statistical test used were Wilcoxon signed rank and Mann-Whitney test. RESULTS: minimal and excessive buccal corridors were the least attractive when judged by three groups. All groups preferred smaller buccal corridors for the male subject and larger buccal corridors for the female subject. No significant judging differences were found between male and female judges from among art and dental students. CONCLUSIONS: minimal or excessive buccal corridor should be included in the problem list during orthodontic diagnosis and treatment planning.