All ETDs from UAB

Advisory Committee Chair

Chung H Kau

Advisory Committee Members

Clark Browne

Amjad Javed

Nada Souccar

Document Type

Thesis

Date of Award

2015

Degree Name by School

Master of Science (MS) School of Dentistry

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to compare the translucency parameter, stain resistance and hardness of dental restorative composites and orthodontic adhesives in order to determine an ideal esthetic attachment material for Invisalign® treatment. Materials and Methods: Two dental restorative composites (Filtek™ Supreme Ultra, Tetric EvoCeram®) and three orthodontic adhesives (L.C.R.™, Transbond™ XT, Phase II® Dual Cure) were used in this in-vitro study. 2.0 mm thick samples of each material were fabricated in silicone molds covered with a flat sheet of Invisalign attachment template material. To evaluate the translucency parameter and stain resistance, initial L*a*b* values of each material were recorded with a spectrophotometer against a white and a black background (n=8). The samples were stored in a staining solution for 12 days (simulating 1 year) and the L*a*b* values were retaken. ΔE00 was calculated between initial L*a*b* values against a white and a black background to determine the translucency parameter and ΔE00 was calculated between initial and final L*a*b* values against a white background to determine stain resistance. Vickers hardness was then measured on similar specimens (n=2, 5 indents each) with 0.3 kg force. Translucency parameter, stain resistance and hardness were compared between materials with individual 1-way ANOVA and Tukey post-hoc analysis (α = 0.05). Results: Regarding the translucency parameter, materials ranked in order of most to least translucent as follows: Filtek Supreme Ultra > L.C.R. > Tetric EvoCeram > Transbond XT > Phase II Dual Cure. L.C.R. and Phase II Dual Cure showed significantly greater stain resistance than Transbond XT, while all other materials were statistically similar. Regarding hardness, materials ranked in order of most to least hard as follows: Filtek Supreme Ultra > Phase II Dual Cure > Transbond XT, L.C.R., Tetric EvoCeram. Conclusions: Generalizations cannot be made about the performance of orthodontic adhesives as compared to dental restorative composites; however, some of the test orthodontic adhesives may have suitable mechanical and esthetic properties to serve as Invisalign attachments.

Included in

Dentistry Commons

Share

COinS