RESUMEN
PURPOSE: This study was performed to determine the buccal alveolar bone thickness following rapid maxillary expansion (RME) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four individuals (15 females, 9 males; 13.9 years) that underwent RME therapy were included. Each patient had CBCT images available before (T1), after (T2), and 2 to 3 years after (T3) maxillary expansion therapy. Coronal multiplanar reconstruction images were used to measure the linear transverse dimensions, inclinations of teeth, and thickness of the buccal alveolar bone. One-way ANOVA analysis was used to compare the changes between the three times of imaging. Pairwise comparisons were made with the Bonferroni method. The level of significance was established at p<0.05. RESULTS: The mean changes between the points in time yielded significant differences for both molar and premolar transverse measurements between T1 and T2 (p<0.05) and between T1 and T3 (p<0.05). When evaluating the effect of maxillary expansion on the amount of buccal alveolar bone, a decrease between T1 and T2 and an increase between T2 and T3 were found in the buccal bone thickness of both the maxillary first premolars and maxillary first molars. However, these changes were not significant. Similar changes were observed for the angular measurements. CONCLUSION: RME resulted in non-significant reduction of buccal bone between T1 and T2. These changes were reversible in the long-term with no evident deleterious effects on the alveolar buccal bone.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The objectives of this study were to evaluate the debonding strength and mode of failure of a selenium containing adhesive compared to an established orthodontic adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred sixty bovine mandibular incisors were allocated to eight groups: steel and clear brackets were bonded with either selenium containing adhesive (Group 1: SeLect Defense) or a conventional light-cured adhesive (Group 2:Transbond XT) to measure debond strength and the adhesive remnant index was used to assess the location of bond failure. Data was evaluated using a three-way analysis of variance and Fisher's PLSD multiple comparisons test for mean debond strengths. RESULTS: Group 2 debond strengths were greater than that of Group 1 with the steel and clear brackets. Group 1 debond strengths were greater with clear than with steel brackets at both time points. Both adhesives demonstrated increased debond strengths from zero to 24 hours and the clear brackets exhibited a greater ARI than steel after debonding. Comparisons of debond strength means among adhesives, brackets, and times were all statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS/DISCUSSION: All debond strengths were within a clinically acceptable range according to previous literature. SeLect Defense may be desirable due to its potential for preventing white spot lesions despite the reduced strength compared to Transbond XT.