OBJETIVO: o objetivo do presente estudo foi comparar o desempenho clínico da colagem de braquetes ortodônticos com resina Transbond (3M Unitek) associada a dois sistemas adesivos: convencional em duas etapas (ataque ácido + Transbond XT adhesive Primer) e Self-Etching Primer (SEP), em etapa única (Transbond Plus). MÉTODOS: a amostra foi constituída de 480 braquetes metálicos (Victory, 3M Unitek), colados em 24 pacientes, que foram tratados durante um período de 36 a 48 meses. A colagem foi feita por meio do sistema split-mouth, utilizando os dois sistemas de colagem em cada paciente. Foi analisada a taxa de queda dos braquetes para cada sistema de colagem, descrita a causa da queda conforme relato do paciente e a posição dos dentes nas arcadas. RESULTADOS: o sistema adesivo convencional apresentou taxa de queda de 5,41%, enquanto a do SEP foi de 4,58%. O sistema convencional apresentou 5 quedas (38,4%) no quadrante superior direito, 2 (15,4%) no quadrante superior esquerdo, 4 (30,8%) no quadrante inferior direito e 2 (15,4%) no quadrante inferior esquerdo. O SEP apresentou 4 quedas (36,4%) no quadrante superior direito, 1 (9%) no quadrante superior esquerdo, 3 (27,3%) no quadrante inferior direito e 3 (27,3%) no quadrante inferior esquerdo. Por meio da análise estatística descritiva e do teste Odds Ratio, constatou-se que não houve diferença significativa entre essas taxas (p = 0,67). CONCLUSÃO: com base nesses resultados, pode-se concluir que o sistema adesivo SEP apresentou eficácia clínica semelhante à do sistema adesivo convencional.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the clinical performance of orthodontic brackets bonded with Transbond adhesive paste after two priming systems: a two-stage conventional system (acid etching + Transbond XT adhesive primer) and a singlestage self-etching primer (SEP) (Transbond Plus). METHODS: The sample comprised 480 metal brackets bonded to the teeth of 24 consecutive patients treated for 36 to 48 months. A split-mouth design was used for bonding, and both systems were used in each patient. Bracket failure rates for each system were analyzed; and failure causes as reported by the patients and the quadrant of teeth for which brackets failed were recorded. RESULTS: The conventional system group had a failure rate of 5.41%, whereas the rate for SEP was 4.58%. In this group, there were 5 failures (38.4%) in the right maxillary quadrant, 2 (15.4%) in the left maxillary quadrant, 4 (30.8%) in the right mandibular quadrant, and 2 (15.4%) in the left mandibular quadrant. In the SEP group, there were 4 (36.4%) failures in the right maxillary quadrant, 1 (9%) in the left maxillary quadrant, 3 (27.3%) in the right mandibular quadrant, and 3 (27.3%) in the left mandibular quadrant. Results of descriptive statistical analysis and odds ratio did not show any significant differences between rates (p = 0.67). CONCLUSION: The clinical efficiency of SEP was similar to that of the conventional system.

This study aimed to investigate age-related changes in the biosynthetic capacity of prostaglandin E2 (PGE2) in the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) during one month of orthodontic treatment. Twenty-five juvenile subjects (mean age 13 ± 2.1 years) and 23 adults (mean age 24 ± 2.1 years) were included. GCF was collected immediately before the force application at the baseline, 2, 21 and 28 days, with periopaper inserted into the gingival crevice of the maxillary lateral incisors. The mediator levels were determined with an EIA kit. The results showed that the PGE2 concentrations were significantly elevated from the baseline to 21 days (129.35 and 198.84 pg/µL, p = 0.0169) in juvenile subjects and reduced from 21 to 28 days (198.84 to 112.60 pg/µL, p = 0.0032). Adults, however, had no significant changes in the PGE2 levels. The total amounts of PGE2 from both groups changed between the baseline to 21 and 21 to 28 days (p = 0.0119 and p = 0.0076, respectively). The PGE2 initial and final levels showed significant differences between the juveniles and adults, being higher in adults (baseline: juvenile = 129.35 pg/µL vs. adult = 163.20 pg/µL, p = 0.0379; t3: juvenile = 112.60 pg/µL and adult = 175.30 pg/µL, p = 0.0005). In conclusion, the results demonstrate the presence of variation in the PGE2 levels according to age and the orthodontic activation period, which can explain why the speed of orthodontics treatment may be different in adults vs. juveniles.