The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the flexural, compressive and diametral tensile strengths of five cements used in orthodontics for band cementation. Twelve specimens of each cement were tested: 1 - GC Fuji Ortho Band (FJ), GC America Inc.; 2 - Meron (MR), Voco; 3 - Multi-Cure Glass Ionomer Band Cement (MC), 3M Unitek; 4 - Band-Lok (BL), Reliance Orthodontic Products; and 5 - Ketac Cem (KC), 3M ESPE. The results (mean) for diametral tensile strength were: 10.51 MPa (FJ), 9.60 MPa (MR), 20.04 MPa (MC), 42.80 MPa (BL), and 4.08 MPa (KC). The results for compressive strength were (in the same order): 64.50 MPa, 77.71 MPa, 94.21 MPa, 193.88 MPa, and 81.93 MPa. The results for flexural strength were (in the same order): 20.72 MPa, 25.84 MPa, 53.41 MPa, 137.41 MPa, and 20.50 MPa. The statistical analysis was performed by two-way ANOVA and Tukey tests with p-value £ 0.05. In terms of diametral tensile strength, BL showed the highest strength statistically, and MC, the second highest. In terms of compressive tensile strength, BL showed the highest strength statistically, and FJ did not attain the minimum recommended strength. In terms of flexural tensile strength, BL cement was superior to MC, and MR, FJ and KC were equivalent and inferior to BL and MC.

OBJETIVO: objetivo deste estudo foi comparar a resistência flexural, resistência à compressão e resistência à tração diametral de quatro diferentes cimentos de ionômero de vidro convencionais utilizados para cimentação de bandas ortodônticas (Vidrion C/SS White; Meron/Voco; Ketac Cem/3M ESPE; Vivaglasss/Ivoclar-Vivadent). METODOLOGIA: foram confeccionados 12 corpos-de-prova para cada cimento, em cada teste, seguindo a norma 66 da ADA para resistência à tração diametral e à compressão, e norma 4049 da ISO para resistência flexural. Os testes foram feitos após 24 horas de armazenagem em água destilada a 37ºC, na máquina de testes Universal Instron 4444 sob velocidade de 0,75mm/minuto para resistência flexural e 1mm/min para resistência à tração diametral e à compressão. Os resultados obtidos para o teste de resistência flexural foram: 25,85 ± 5,43MPa (Meron); 21,85 ± 6,96MPa (Vidrion C); 20,85 ± 4,17MPa (Vivaglass); 20,50 ± 4,89MPa (Ketac Cem). Para o teste de compressão os resultados foram (na mesma ordem): 77,72 ± 20,21MPa; 56,49 ± 8,54MPa; 47,84 ± 9,25MPa; 81,93 ± 13,37MPa. RESULTADOS: os resultados para o teste de resistência à tração diametral foram (na mesma ordem): 9,59 ± 2,09MPa; 5,25 ± 1,29MPa; 7,69 ± 2,09MPa; 4,08 ± 1,32MPa. RESULTADOS: os quatro cimentos mostraram-se estatisticamente equivalentes quanto ao teste de resistência flexural. Os cimentos Meron e Ketac Cem foram estatisticamente mais resistentes à compressão que o Vidrion C e o Vivaglass. Em relação ao teste de resistência à tração diametral, o cimento Meron mostrou-se estatisticamente superior aos demais.

AIM: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the flexural strength, the compressive strength and the diametral tensile strength of four conventional glass-ionomer cements (Vidrion C/SS White; Meron/Voco; Ketac Cem/3M ESPE; Vivaglass/Ivoclar-Vivadent) used in Orthodontics for band cementation. METHODS: Twelve specimens of each cement were prepared for each test. Specimens were fabricated according to ISO 4049 (flexural strength) and to the ADA specification #66 (compressive strength and diametral tensile strength). Specimens were stored in distilled water at 37ºC for 24 hours, and tested using an Instron Universal Testing Machine 4444 with crosshead speeds of 0.75mm/minute (flexural strength) and 1mm/minute (compressive strength and diametral strength). RESULTS: The results (mean ± SD, in MPa) for flexural strength were: 25.85 ± 5.43 (Meron); 21.85 ± 6.96 (Vidrion C); 20.85 ± 4.17 (Vivaglass); 20.50 ± 4.89 (Ketac Cem). Compressive strength (in the same order): 77.72 ± 20.21; 56.49 ± 8.54; 47.84 ± 9.25; 81.93 ± 13.37. The results for diametral tensile strength were (in the same order): 9.59 ± 2.09; 5.25 ± 1.29; 7.69 ± 2.09; 4.08 ± 1.32. CONCLUSIONS: No statistically significant difference was detected in the flexural strength among the different groups. Meron and Ketac Cem yielded greater mean compressive strength values than Vidrion C and Vivaglass. Meron resulted in significantly higher diametral tensile strength mean value than the other cements.