Maria Therese S. Galang-Boquiren

Comparison of the transformation temperatures of heat-activated Nickel-Titanium orthodontic archwires by two different techniques.

OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to investigate the suitability of the Bend and Free Recovery (BFR) method as a standard test method to determine the transformation temperatures of heat-activated Ni-Ti orthodontic archwires. This was done by determining the transformation temperatures of two brands of heat-activated Ni-Ti orthodontic archwires using the both the BFR method and the standard method of Differential Scanning Calorimetry (DSC). The values obtained from the two methods were compared with each other and to the manufacturer-listed values. METHODS Forty heat-activated Ni-Ti archwires from both Rocky Mountain Orthodontics (RMO) and Opal Orthodontics (Opal) were tested using BFR and DSC. Round (0.016 inches) and rectangular (0.019×0.025 inches) archwires from each manufacturer were tested. The austenite start temperatures (As) and austenite finish temperatures (Af) were recorded. RESULTS For four of the eight test groups, the BFR method resulted in lower standard deviations than the DSC method, and, overall, the average standard deviation for BFR testing was slightly lower than for DSC testing. Statistically significant differences were seen between the transformation temperatures obtained from the BFR and DSC test methods. However, the Af temperatures obtained from the two methods were remarkably similar with the mean differences ranging from 0.0 to 2.1°C: Af Opal round (BFR 26.7°C, DSC 27.6°C) and rectangular (BFR 27.6°C, DSC 28.6°C); Af RMO round (BFR 25.5°C, DSC 25.5°C) and rectangular (BFR 28.0°C, DSC 25.9°C). Significant differences were observed between the manufacturer-listed transformation temperatures and those obtained with BFR and DSC testing for both manufacturers. SIGNIFICANCE The results of this study suggest that the Bend and Free Recovery method is suitable as a standard method to evaluate the transformation temperatures of heat-activated Ni-Ti orthodontic archwires.

Bonding of Metal Orthodontic Attachments to Sandblasted Porcelain and Zirconia Surfaces

This study evaluates tensile bond strength (TBS) of metal orthodontic attachments to sandblasted feldspathic porcelain and zirconia with various bonding protocols. Thirty-six (36) feldspathic and 36 zirconia disc samples were prepared, glazed, embedded in acrylic blocks and sandblasted, and divided into three groups according to one or more of the following treatments: hydrofluoric acid 4% (HF), Porcelain Conditioner silane primer, Reliance Assure® primer, Reliance Assure plus® primer, and Z Prime™ plus zirconia primer. A round traction hook was bonded to each sample. Static tensile bond strength tests were performed in a universal testing machine and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scoring was done using a digital camera. One-way ANOVA and Pearson chi-square tests were used to analyze TBS (MPa) and ARI scores. No statistically significant mean differences were found in TBS among the different bonding protocols for feldspathic and zirconia, p values = 0.369 and 0.944, respectively. No statistically significant distribution of ARI scores was found among the levels of feldspathic, p value = 0.569. However, statistically significant distribution of ARI scores was found among the levels of zirconia, p value = 0.026. The study concluded that silanization following sandblasting resulted in tensile bond strengths comparable to other bonding protocols for feldspathic and zirconia surface.

Assessment of vertical changes during maxillary expansion using quad helix or bonded rapid maxillary expander

OBJECTIVE To determine if there is a significantly different effect on vertical changes during phase I palatal expansion treatment using a quad helix and a bonded rapid maxillary expander in growing skeletal Class I and Class II patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS This retrospective study looked at 2 treatment groups, a quad helix group and a bonded rapid maxillary expander group, before treatment (T1) and at the completion of phase I treatment (T2). Each treatment group was compared to an untreated predicted growth model. Lateral cephalograms at T1 and T2 were traced and analyzed for changes in vertical dimension. RESULTS No differences were found between the treatment groups at T1, but significant differences at T2 were found for convexity, lower facial height, total facial height, facial axis, and Frankfort Mandibular Plane Angle (FMA) variables. A comparison of treatment groups at T2 to their respective untreated predicted growth models found a significant difference for the lower facial height variable in the quad helix group and for the upper first molar to palatal plane (U6-PP) variable in the bonded expander group. CONCLUSION Overall, both the quad helix expander and the bonded rapid maxillary expander showed minimal vertical changes during palatal expansion treatment. The differences at T2 suggested that the quad helix expander had more control over skeletal vertical measurements. When comparing treatment results to untreated predicted growth values, the quad helix expander appeared to better maintain lower facial height and the bonded rapid maxillary expander appeared to better maintain the maxillary first molar vertical height.