J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Eden, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Eden, S. E.
Right arrow Articles by Brown, J.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 29, No. 1, 51-55, March 2002
© 2002 British Orthodontic Society


Scientific Section

A clinical trial of light cure acrylic resin for orthodontic use

S. E. Eden, W. J. S. Kerr and J. Brown

University of Glasgow Dental School, UK

Address for correspondence:
Professor W. J. S. Kerr, University of Glasgow Dental School, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3JZ, UK. E-mail:
w.j.s.kerr{at}dental.gla.ac.uk

Abstract

Objective To ascertain whether or not the less porous surface associated with visible light cure appliances and the absence of free monomer had any measurable affect upon mucosal erythema, and to assess the durability of such appliances in a clinical context.

Design A prospective randomized trial of visible light cure (Triad VLC) and autopolymerizing (Orthoresin) acrylic resin used as orthodontic base plate materials.

Setting University Dental Hospital and School.

Subjects Fifty subjects from a consecutively enrolled sample of 69 (19 drop outs) for removable appliance therapy (23 VLC, 27 AP).

Outcome measures Erythema meter scores and appliance breakages.

Results No statistical difference in mucosal erythema between the two materials was found. Fifty-two per cent of VLC appliances broke during a 6-month period, as opposed to 7 per cent of AP appliances.

Conclusions VLC appears to have no clinically beneficial effect on the oral mucosa compared with AP. VLC appliances are currently not sufficiently durable to make them a viable alternative to AP appliances.

Key words: Light cure acrylic resin, removable appliances




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Orthod.Home page
J. A. Brennan and S. J. Littlewood
Twin-block Re-activation.
J. Orthod., March 1, 2006; 33(1): 3 - 6.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2002 British Orthodontic Society.