O objetivo do estudo foi avaliar o efeito de tratamentos da base de bráquetes cerâmicos monocristalinos na resistência de união ao esmalte após recolagem. Setenta e cinco pré-molares foram selecionados e aleatoriamente distribuídos em 5 grupos (n=15) de acordo com o tratamento da base do bráquete: I - sem tratamento, primeira colagem (controle), II - jateamento com óxido de alumínio, III - jateamento seguido da aplicação de silano, IV - jateamento com partículas de dióxido de sílica (silicatização) seguido de silano, V - silicatização realizada em laboratório (Sistema Rocatec). Os bráquetes foram colados no esmalte com Transbond XT sem condicionamento ácido. Em seguida, os bráquetes foram removidos e suas bases foram submetidas aos diferentes tratamentos. Os bráquetes foram recolados, armazenados por 24 h e submetidos ao ensaio mecânico de cisalhamento com velocidade de 0,5 mm/min. Após, o índice de remanescente adesivo (IRA) foi avaliado em cada espécime. Os dados foram submetidos à análise de variância e teste de Tukey (α=0,05). Pode-se observar que houve diferença significativa apenas entre o sistema Rocatec e os demais grupos, o qual apresentou os menores valores de resistência. Os maiores valores de resistência foram observados para o grupo I (controle), sem diferença significativa dos grupos II, III e IV. A maioria dos grupos apresentou maior porcentagem de falhas na interface esmalte/resina (escore 1). Pode-se concluir que os tratamentos da base do bráquete cerâmico foram efetivos, apresentando valores similares ao grupo controle, exceto para o grupo em que foi usado Rocatec.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of rebonded ceramic brackets after subjecting the bracket base to different treatments. Seventy-five premolars were selected and randomly distributed into five groups (n=15), according to the type of the bracket surface treatment: I, no treatment, first bonding (control); II, sandblasting with aluminum oxide; III, sandblasting + silane; IV, silica coating + silane; and V, silicatization performed in a laboratory (Rocatec system). The brackets were fixed on an enamel surface with Transbond XT resin without acid etching. The brackets were then removed and their bases were subjected to different treatments. Thereafter, the brackets were fixed again to the enamel surface and the specimens were subjected to shear bond strength (SBS) test. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was then evaluated for each specimen. Data were subjected to ANOVA and Tukey's tests (α=0.05). A statistically significant difference was observed only between Rocatec and the other groups; the Rocatec group showed the lowest SBS values. The highest SBS values were observed for group 1, without any significant difference from the values for groups II, III and IV. Most groups had a higher percentage of failures at the enamel-resin interface (score 1). It was concluded that the surface treatments of rebonded ceramic brackets were effective, with SBS values similar to that of the control group, except Rocatec group.

AIM: To evaluate the bond strength of brackets fixed with different materials (two light-cured nanofilled resins - Transbond Supreme LV and Flow Tain LV, a light-cured resin - Transbond XT (control) and two chemically cured resins for indirect bonding - Sondhi Rapid- Set and Custom I.Q.) using the indirect bonding technique after 10 min and 24 h, and evaluate the type of failure. METHODS: One hundred premolars were selected and randomly divided into groups (n=10) according to the material and fixation period. The brackets were bonded through the indirect technique following the manufacturer's instructions and stored in deionized water at 37°C for 10 min or 24 h. After, the specimens were submitted to a shear bond strength (SBS) test (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min and evaluated for adhesive remnant index (ARI). The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05) and the ARI scores were submitted to the chi-square test. RESULTS: It could be observed a significant difference among the materials (Flow Tain LV = Transbond Supreme LV = Transbond XT> Sondhi Rapid-Set > Custom I.Q.). There was no significant difference in resistance values between 10 min and 24 h, regardless of the materials. Most groups showed adhesive remaining adhered to the enamel (scores 2 and 3) without statistically significant difference (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the light-cured nanofilled materials used in indirect bonding showed greater resistance than the chemically cured materials. The period of fixation had no influence on the resistance for different materials.

O objetivo deste estudo foi comparar os efeitos dos lacebacks ativos e passivos na posição ântero-posterior dos primeiros molares e dos incisivos centrais superiores durante a fase de nivelamento. Vinte e três indivíduos com má oclusão de Classes I e II foram tratados com extrações dos primeiros pré-molares utilizando aparelhos fixos pré-ajustados (bráquetes MBT 0,022"). A fase de nivelamento foi realizada somente com arcos de aço inoxidável. A amostra foi dividida em 2 grupos: 14 pacientes receberam lacebacks ativos (Grupo 1) e 9 pacientes receberam lacebacks passivos (Grupo 2). Os lacebacks foram feitos com fio de ligadura de 0,008" (0,20 mm). Telerradiografias laterais foram realizadas antes e após a fase de nivelamento. O teste t de Student foi aplicado para determinar as diferenças entre as médias de deslocamento entre os períodos pré e pós-nivelamento e para determinar as diferenças entre os grupos. No Grupo 1, o primeiro molar mostrou uma movimentação mesial significativa enquanto nenhuma alteração foi observada no Grupo 2. Em ambos os grupos, os incisivos centrais superiores foram lingualizados. Em conclusão, os lacebacks ativos produziram perda de ancoragem nos primeiros molares superiores enquanto que os lacebacks passivos não afetaram a posição destes dentes. Lacebacks ativos e passivos foram efetivos para prevenir a vestibularização dos incisivos centrais superiores

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of active and passive lacebacks on antero-posterior position of maxillary first molars and central incisors during leveling phase. Twenty-three subjects with Class I and Class II malocclusion were treated with first premolars extraction using preadjusted appliances (MBT 0.022-inch brackets). The leveling phase was performed with stainless steel archwires only. The sample was divided into 2 groups: 14 subjects received active lacebacks (Group 1) and 9 subjects received passive lacebacks (Group 2). Lacebacks were made from 0.008-inch ligature wire. Lateral cephalometric radiographs were taken pre- and post-leveling phase. Student's t-test was applied to determine the differences between pre- and post-leveling mean values and to determine the mean differences between groups. In Group I, the first molars showed a significant mesial movement, whereas no change was observed in Group 2. In both groups, maxillary central incisor crowns moved to lingual side. In conclusion, active laceback produced anchorage loss of maxillary first molars whereas passive laceback did not affect the position of these teeth. Active and passive lacebacks were effective in preventing central incisor proclination.