Comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a compomer concerning bonded acrylic expander retention and white spot formation A randomized clinical trial

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorKucukonder, Abdurahman
dc.contributor.authorHatipoglu, Omer
dc.date.accessioned2024-11-07T13:25:18Z
dc.date.available2024-11-07T13:25:18Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentNiğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi
dc.description.abstractBackgroundThe goal of the present study was to compare a compomer and a glass ionomer cement (GIC) used for full the cementation of acrylic splint-type maxillary expanders with respect to failure rate and white spot lesions (WSLs) in vivo.MethodsA total of 120 patients with posterior crossbite and transverse maxillary deficiency were included to the study. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups: GIC group (n = 60) and compomer group (n = 60). The hyrax screw in both groups was activated two times a day for the first week then once a day until the desired amount of expansion was achieved. The rapid maxillary expansion (RME) appliance was left in the mouth for an extra month after the active expansion phase as a retention appliance. Then cementation failures were recorded. In addition, the patients were evaluated for white spot lesions (WSLs) before cementation and after removal of the appliance.ResultsA total of 12 (20%) and 2 (3.3%) RME devices failed in the GIC and the compomer group, respectively. This difference between groups was statistically significant (p = 0.044). There were also statistically significant differences between the GIC and compomer groups in terms of WSLs on the central (p = 0.06) and lateral (p = 0.011) incisors, and on the first molar (0.028). However, no differences were observed for the canines (p = 0.185), first (p = 0.457) and second premolars (p = 0.116). In total, there was a statistically significant difference between the GIC and compomer groups (p = 0.048), with more WSLs in the GIC group.ConclusionsAmong the products used in the study, the compomer should be preferred over the GIC for cementation of acrylic splint-type rapid maxillary expanders in terms of failure rate and WSLs.
dc.identifier.doi10.1007/s00056-023-00448-4
dc.identifier.endpage163
dc.identifier.issn1434-5293
dc.identifier.issn1615-6714
dc.identifier.issue3
dc.identifier.pmid36764948
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85147744867
dc.identifier.scopusqualityQ1
dc.identifier.startpage157
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00448-4
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11480/14631
dc.identifier.volume84
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000932683400001
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ3
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Science
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopus
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMed
dc.language.isoen
dc.publisherUrban & Vogel
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanı
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.snmzKA_20241106
dc.subjectRapid maxillary expanders
dc.subjectFailure rate
dc.subjectDental white spots
dc.subjectOrthodontics
dc.subjectRetention
dc.titleComparison between a glass ionomer cement and a compomer concerning bonded acrylic expander retention and white spot formation A randomized clinical trial
dc.title.alternativeGlasionomerzement im Vergleich zu einem Kompomer hinsichtlich der Retention von geklebten Acrylexpandern und der Entstehung von White Spots: Eine randomisierte klinische Studie
dc.typeArticle

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayın Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu