Elgharabawy, M., Elgameay, W., Abdel-Aal, A., Ramadan, A. (2025). COMPARISON OF HYDROPHILIC ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES TO A CONVENTIONAL HYDROPHOBIC ADHESIVE IN WET AND DRY FIELDS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY. Dental Science Updates, 6(1), 161-169. doi: 10.21608/dsu.2025.325482.1268
Mohamed Elgharabawy; Walaa Elgameay; Ahmed Abdel-Aal; Ahmed Ramadan. "COMPARISON OF HYDROPHILIC ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES TO A CONVENTIONAL HYDROPHOBIC ADHESIVE IN WET AND DRY FIELDS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY". Dental Science Updates, 6, 1, 2025, 161-169. doi: 10.21608/dsu.2025.325482.1268
Elgharabawy, M., Elgameay, W., Abdel-Aal, A., Ramadan, A. (2025). 'COMPARISON OF HYDROPHILIC ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES TO A CONVENTIONAL HYDROPHOBIC ADHESIVE IN WET AND DRY FIELDS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY', Dental Science Updates, 6(1), pp. 161-169. doi: 10.21608/dsu.2025.325482.1268
Elgharabawy, M., Elgameay, W., Abdel-Aal, A., Ramadan, A. COMPARISON OF HYDROPHILIC ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES TO A CONVENTIONAL HYDROPHOBIC ADHESIVE IN WET AND DRY FIELDS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY. Dental Science Updates, 2025; 6(1): 161-169. doi: 10.21608/dsu.2025.325482.1268
COMPARISON OF HYDROPHILIC ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES TO A CONVENTIONAL HYDROPHOBIC ADHESIVE IN WET AND DRY FIELDS: AN IN-VITRO STUDY
1Demonstrator, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, MUST
2Associate professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University.
3Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, MUST
4Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University.
Abstract
Introduction: Bonding is a technique sensitive procedure that greatly affects the success of orthodontic treatment. Moisture contamination is regarded as the most common cause of bond failure. In this study a comparison was made between hydrophobic and hydrophilic adhesives in both dry and wet fields. Aim: The objective of this investigation was to assess the impact of moisture contamination on SBS of hydrophilic adhesives in comparison to that of a conventional hydrophobic adhesive in dry and wet fields. Materials and methods: Sixty sound premolars were split into three equal groups. Group I was bonded using conventional adhesive (Contec LC), Group II was bonded using hydrophilic adhesive (Transbond Plus Color Change), and Group III was bonded with hydrophilic RMGI (Meron Plus AC). Based on the bonding field, each group was thereafter separated into two subgroups (wet or dry). After bonding, a universal testing equipment was used to assess the SBS. Results: Although saliva affected Contec LC more than it affected Transbond Plus Color Change or Meron Plus AC, this was not statistically significant (P= 0.228). Conclusion: Hydrophilic adhesives did not provide any significant advantages over conventional adhesives in either wet or dry fields.
View on SCiNiTO
Top