空气喷磨处理氟斑牙牙釉质对树脂粘接强度的影响

目的：检测空气喷磨处理对氟斑牙牙釉质与复合树脂间粘接强度影响。方法：根据Dean氏分类标准,选择15颗完整无龋坏的氟斑牙患者因正畸需要拔除的第一前磨牙为研究对象,随机分为A（单纯酸蚀）、B（单纯喷磨）、C（喷磨加酸蚀）三组进行釉质表面处理后粘接树脂,采用微拉伸粘接强度实验测定三组试件的微拉伸粘接强度。结果：A、B、C三组牙釉质粘接树脂后的微拉伸粘接强度分别为（23.48±5.71）MPa、（16.55±3.52）MPa、（29.24±4.61）MPa,各组微拉伸粘接强度平均值间差异有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。结论：采用空气喷磨加酸蚀预处理氟斑牙牙釉质可以提高氟斑牙牙面与复合树脂的粘接力。     

两种局部用氟方法对托槽粘接性能的实验研究

目的 :测定含氟自酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟对托槽粘接剪切强度和托槽脱落后牙面粘接剂残留量的影响。方法 :将 3 0个因固定正畸需拔除的健康前磨牙随机分为对照组、自酸蚀组和酸蚀后用氟组。将粘接完托槽的三组牙齿置于 3 7℃恒温水浴中保持 2 4h ,然后测定托槽的剪切强度及粘接剂残留指数。结果 :三组托槽剪切强度及粘接剂残留指数有显著性差异 ,但都达到临床需要的最小粘接强度。自酸蚀组剪切强度最高 ,且牙面粘接剂残留量最多。而酸蚀后用氟组的剪切强度最低 ,牙面粘接剂残留量最少。结论 :使用含氟酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟的方法可预防牙釉质表面脱矿和龋坏     

重度氟斑牙直接贴面粘接托槽降低托槽脱落率的实验研究

目的通过氟斑牙与正常牙托槽的剪切粘接破坏力和拉伸粘接破坏力的对比性研究,探讨正畸临床重度氟斑牙采用光固化复合树脂直接贴面粘接托槽,增加氟斑牙与托槽粘接强度的方法.方法选择拔除的重度氟斑牙30颗和正常牙10颗,做为实验样本.将正常牙设为对照组.氟斑牙按照氟斑牙釉质表面处理方法的不同分为氟斑牙直接粘接托槽组,氟斑牙表面磨除粘接托槽组,氟斑牙直接贴面粘接托槽组,每组为10颗牙齿,每一牙面粘接方丝弓托槽.采用万能材料试验机分别对四组牙齿进行剪切粘接破坏力、拉伸粘接破坏力的测定.并对每一粘接破坏面发生的部位进行记录分析.结果氟斑牙三个粘接组间的剪切粘接破坏力和拉伸粘接破坏力差异均有显著性(P＜0.01).以氟斑牙直接贴面粘接托槽组的剪切粘接破坏力(329±30.2)和拉伸粘接破坏力(163.1±15.2)最大.正常牙粘接托槽组、氟斑牙表面磨除粘接托槽组粘接破坏面多发生在粘接剂与托槽之间,氟斑牙直接粘接托槽组粘接破坏面多发生在釉质与粘接剂之间.结论氟斑牙直接贴面粘接托槽组的剪切粘接破坏力和拉伸粘接破坏力均高于正常牙粘接托槽组,本研究为正畸临床氟斑牙托槽的粘接提供了一种新的方法.     

空气喷磨处理氟斑牙牙釉质对树脂粘接强度的影响

目的:检测空气喷磨处理对氟斑牙牙釉质与复合树脂间粘接强度影响.方法:根据Dean氏分类标准,选择15颗完整无龋坏的氟斑牙患者因正畸需要拔除的第一前磨牙为研究对象,随机分为A(单纯酸蚀)、B(单纯喷磨)、C(喷磨加酸蚀)三组进行釉质表面处理后粘接树脂,采用微拉伸粘接强度实验测定三组试件的微拉伸粘接强度.结果:A、B、C三...     

两种含氟粘接系统对托槽粘接性能的临床研究

目的：研究含氟自酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统粘接正畸托槽的临床效果。方法：随机选取39名正畸患者,均分为三组,以自酸蚀粘接系统、牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统和京津釉质粘接系统两两组合分别于患者双侧牙面粘接托槽,随访12个月,记录3种粘接系统的托槽脱落率。结果：3种粘接体系粘接托槽的脱落率无统计学差异。结论：自酸蚀粘接系统和牙面酸蚀后涂氟粘接系统对托槽的粘接效果与京津釉质粘接剂无显著性差异。     

不同正畸粘接系统在托槽再粘接中的应用评价

目的：检测使用不同正畸粘接系统再粘接托槽对其剪切粘接强度的影响,以探讨提高临床再粘接效率的方法。方法：选择60颗正畸减数的恒双尖牙,依据不同粘接系统随机分为3组：津京釉质粘接剂（A组）、TransbondXT光固化粘接系统（B组）及Transbond自酸蚀粘接系统（C组）。所有样本均先用津京釉质粘接剂粘接托槽,24h后去除托槽重新粘接新托槽,测量3组托槽再粘接的剪切强度及粘接剂残留指数（AdhesiveRemnantIndex,ARI）。结果：3组托槽再粘接剪切强度分别为（8．615±2．460）MPa、（8．807±1．801）MPa及（8．144±3．023）MPa,组间剪切强度差异无显著性;ARI评分表明：C组牙面上残留的粘接剂明显少于其他两组。结论：采用自酸蚀粘接系统再粘接托槽的剪切强度与其它两种粘接系统相当,并且去除托槽后牙面残留粘接剂较少。     

氟斑牙正畸托槽粘接表面处理方法的研究进展

氟斑牙正畸托槽粘接一直是困扰临床医生的难题.目前临床上可采用延长酸蚀时间、釉质微打磨、微预备、粘接促进剂和激光酸蚀等方法促进氟斑牙粘接,延长酸蚀时间适用于轻中度氟斑牙,操作简便,但过度酸蚀会造成釉质破坏;微打磨适用于轻度氟斑牙,需橡皮障保护,促进粘接的同时可去除表面色素沉着;微预备可显著提升各类氟斑牙粘接强度,但需磨除...     

不同酸蚀时间托槽与牙面间抗拉粘接力研究

目的　测量不同酸蚀时间托槽与牙面间的粘接力 ,以探讨正畸临床上粘接托槽于牙面的最佳酸蚀时间。方法　选择 80颗正畸减数的恒双尖牙 ,根据托槽酸蚀时间 (1 5s和 6 0s)和施力方向 (0°和 4 5°)的不同 ,随机分为 4组 ,每组 2 0颗 ,用MTSNEW81 0 1 0 0KN液压伺服材料实验机测量托槽剪切粘接强度 ,并评价牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量。结果　 1 5s酸蚀组托槽剪切粘接强度小于 6 0s酸蚀组 ,1 5s酸蚀组最小托槽剪切粘接强度均值为 5 86 2 5MPa;1 5s酸蚀组牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量明显少于 6 0s酸蚀组。结论　 1 5s酸蚀组剪切粘接强度虽然小于 6 0s酸蚀组 ,但已能满足正畸临床需要 ,且 1 5s较 6 0s酸蚀组牙釉质表面粘接剂残留量少 ,临床去除托槽时操作时间短 ,可提高工作效率.     

预置粘接剂托槽的抗剪切强度

目的本研究目的是检测预置粘接剂(Adhesive Precoated,APC)托槽粘接后的抗剪切强度,并与传统的正畸托槽粘接后的抗剪切强度进行对比研究。材料与方法研究中使用50个离体前磨牙,随机分为5组,每组10个样本。按照相应的步骤在牙釉质是粘接托槽。组1:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后用光固化树脂粘接剂(Transbond XT)粘接金属托槽;组2:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后粘接 APC 托槽;组3:釉质表面使用自酸蚀偶联剂,然后用光固化树脂粘接剂粘接金属托槽;组4:釉质表面使用自酸蚀偶联剂,然后粘接 APC 托槽;组5:先进行釉质酸蚀,然后用化学固化树脂粘接剂(Unite)粘接金属托槽。用材料力学实验机对托槽施加剪切力,检测每组样本的抗剪切强度和粘接材料残留指数(ARI)。结果每组的平均抗剪切强度分别为组1:11.37±6.62兆帕(MPa);组2:11.08±4.63兆帕;组3:11.62±6.88兆帕;组4:10.96±5.94兆帕;组5:14.41±6.34兆帕。方差分析表明,5组之间的粘接强度的差异没有显著的统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论预置粘接剂托槽可以有足够的粘接强度供临床使用。     

不同再粘接方法对托槽粘接效果的影响

目的评价托槽再粘接过程中酸蚀对再粘接效果的影响,比较传统两步法和自酸蚀一步法对再粘接效果的影响。方法收集40颗由于正畸治疗需要拔除的上颌第二前磨牙,随机分成4组。分别运用传统两步法(组1和组2)和自酸蚀一步法(组3和组4)进行首次托槽粘接。然后再去托槽,进行牙面处理,各组分别用相同的粘接剂重新粘接,其中组2和组4粘接前无酸蚀。再粘接后24h,对40颗牙进行剪切粘接强度(SBS)以及粘接剂剩余指数(ARI)的检测,并在扫描电镜下对牙釉质面进行观察。结果按组1-组4的顺序,其平均SBS值分别为14.18、6.57、11.90和5.91 MPa。其中组1与组2、组3与组4之间的差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);而组1与组3、组2与组4之间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。ARI指数在组1与组2之间差异具有统计学意义(P<0.05);其它各组间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。扫描电镜照片显示:组1与组2的釉质面上有大面积以及较深的沟裂;组3与组4釉质上有相对较浅的小凹。结论在本试验条件下:①再粘接过程中未经酸蚀也可获得临床所需的粘接强度,且牙釉质面比再次酸蚀者破坏范围相对较小;②传统两步法与自酸蚀一步法所获的托槽再粘接强度以及粘接剂剩余指数无明显差异。     

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique.

When bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel, most orthodontists use a conventional technique of etching tooth enamel with phosphoric acid, placing a hydrophilic primer on the etched, rinsed, and dried surface, then bonding the bracket with an adhesive resin composite. New systems simultaneously etch and prime the tooth surface in preparation for bonding. The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel with a conventional, multistep adhesive system and a self-etching primer adhesive system. In addition, a third group was included in which the air dispersion step in the self-etching primer system was omitted. Brackets were bonded to 108 extracted human molars according to 1 of 3 experimental protocols--group 1: conventional multistep adhesive (n = 36); group 2: self-etching primer system (n = 36); group 3: self-etching primer system without air dispersion (n = 36). Specimens were loaded to failure in a universal testing machine (Instron, Canton, Mass). Mean shear bond strengths in megapascals (standard deviation) were 11.3 (2.2), 11.9 (3.2), and 8.2 (2.8) for groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Data were subjected to 1-way analysis of variance at alpha =.05. The mean shear bond strength of the self-etching primer group in which the air dispersion step was omitted was significantly less than in the other 2 groups (P <.001). However, there was no difference in mean shear bond strength between the conventional, multistep adhesive system and the self-etching primer system when the primer was dispersed correctly (P =.34).     

Effect of a fluoride-releasing self-etch acidic primer on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Conventional adhesive systems use three different agents--an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin--during the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems in operative dentistry is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application. Combining conditioning and priming saves time and should be more cost-effective to the clinician and indirectly to the patient. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of self-etching primers, including a fluoride-releasing primer, on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to one of four protocols. In group 1 (control), teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid; after the sealant was applied, the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and light cured for 20 seconds. In group 2, a self-etch acidic primer (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) was applied as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT as in the first group. In group 3, an experimental self-etch primer EXL #547 (3M ESPE) was applied to the teeth as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded as in groups 1 and 2. In group 4, a fluoride-releasing self-etch primer, One-Up Bond F (J. Mortia, USA Inc. Irvine, Calif) that also has a novel dye-sensitized photo polymerization initiator system was applied as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded as in the other groups. The present in vitro findings indicated that the shear bond strengths of the four groups were significantly different (P = .001). Duncan multiple range tests indicated that One-Up Bond F (mean +/- SD strength, 5.1+/-2.5 MPa) and Prompt L-Pop (strength, 7.1+/-4.4 MPa) had significantly lower shear bond strengths than both the EXL #547 self-etch primer (strength, 9.7+/-3.7 MPa) or the phosphoric acid etch and the conventional adhesive system (strength, 10.4+/-2.8 MPa).     

Effect of antimicrobial monomer-containing adhesive on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

A new antibacterial and fluoride-releasing bonding system consists of a self-etching primer that contains an antibacterial monomer and a bonding agent that contains sodium fluoride. This study was to determine the effect of using this new adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Forty molar teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 teeth that were etched for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid, washed with a water spray for 10 seconds, and dried to a chalky white appearance, and the sealant was applied to the etched surface. The precoated brackets were placed on the teeth and light cured. Group 2 consisted of 20 teeth that were etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds as suggested by the manufacturer when bonding to intact enamel. The teeth were washed with a water spray for 10 seconds and dried to a chalky white appearance, and the primer containing antibacterial monomer was applied to the etched surface, left for 20 seconds, and sprayed with a mild airstream. The adhesive was applied to each tooth, and the precoated bracket was placed and light cured. There were no significant differences (P = .220) in the shear bond strengths of the two groups. The mean shear bond strength for the antibacterial fluoride-releasing adhesive was 11.7 +/- 5.6 MPa and for the control was 9.6 +/- 5.0 MPa. The use of an antibacterial fluoride-releasing adhesive system did not affect the shear bond strength of the orthodontic brackets within the first half hour after initial bonding.     

The effect of porcelain surface conditioning on bonding orthodontic brackets

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a new self-etching primer/ adhesive used to enhance the shear strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Forty-five porcelain maxillary central incisor teeth were used in the study. The teeth were divided randomly into three groups: group I (control), the porcelain teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid followed by a sealant and the brackets were bonded with a composite adhesive; group II, the porcelain teeth were microetched and hydrofluoric acid and silane applied and metal brackets were then bonded with the composite adhesive; and group III, the porcelain teeth were etched with phosphoric acid and a self-etching primer/adhesive applied before bonding. Brackets precoated with the adhesive were used on all three groups of teeth. All teeth were stored for 24 hours at 37 degrees C before debonding. The results of the analysis of variance (F = 10.7) indicated that there was a significant difference (P = .001) between the three groups. The mean shear bond strengths of conventional bonding using a 37% phosphoric acid and sealant was 4.4 +/- 2.7 MPa, whereas that of microetching followed by the application of hydrofluoric acid and silane was 11.2 +/- 4.7 MPa, and for the new self-etching primer/adhesive it was 10.3 +/- 5.3 MPa. The last two groups had the highest bond strength values and were not significantly different from each other.     

The effect of saliva contamination on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets when using a self-etch primer

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, at various stages of the bonding procedure using a new self-etch primer. Brackets were bonded to 52 extracted human molars according to one of the following four protocols. Group I (uncontaminated control): A self-etch acidic primer, Angel I (3M/ESPE Minneapolis, Minn) was placed on the enamel for 15 seconds, gently dried with air, and light cured for 10 seconds. Precoated brackets APC II (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were then placed on the teeth and light cured for 20 seconds. Group II: The enamel surface was first contaminated with human saliva for 10 seconds, blown off with an air syringe for five seconds. The bonding procedure was then repeated as in group I. Group III: The self-etch primer was applied for 15 seconds, gently dried with air, and light cured for 10 seconds. The surface was then contaminated with human saliva for 10 seconds, blown off with an air syringe for five seconds. The precoated brackets were then bonded as in groups I and II. Group IV: The enamel surface was contaminated with human saliva for 10 seconds, blown off with an air syringe for five seconds. The self-etch primer was applied. The surface was then re-contaminated with human saliva for 10 seconds, blown off with an air-syringe for five seconds. The precoated brackets were then bonded as in groups I, II, and III. The results of the analysis of variance (F = 4.79) indicated that the shear bond strengths of the four groups were significantly different (P = .005). Tukey HSD tests indicated that contamination both before and after the application of the acid-etch primer resulted in a significantly lower (=1.7+/-1.4 MPa) shear bond strength than either the control group (=6.0+/-3.5 MPa) or the groups where contamination occurred either before (=4.8+/-3.3 MPa) or after (=4.8+/-3.3 MPa) the application of the primer. The new acid-etch primer can maintain adequate shear bond strength if contamination occurs either before or after the application of the primer. On the other hand, contamination both before and after the application of the primer significantly reduced the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.     

Effect of self-etching primers on bond strength--are they reliable?

Currently introduced self-etching primers combine conditioning and priming agents into a single product. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of using three self-etching primers on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets and on the bracket/adhesive failure mode. Brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to one of four protocols. In the control group, teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. In the experimental groups, the enamel was conditioned with three different self-etching primers, Clearfil SE Bond (CSE), Etch & Prime 3.0 (EP3), or Transbond Plus (TBP), as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT in all groups. The present in vitro findings indicate that conditioning with TBP before bonding orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface resulted in a significantly (P < or = .001) higher SBS (mean, 16.0 +/- 4.5 MPa) than that found in CSE, EP3, and the control (acid-etched [AE]) groups. CSE produced bond strength values (mean 11.5 +/- 3.3 MPa) that are statistically comparable to those produced by acid etching (mean 13.1 +/- 3.1 MPa). The use of EP3 for enamel conditioning resulted in the lowest mean SBS value (mean 9.9 +/- 4.0 MPa). A comparison of the adhesive remnant index scores indicated that there was more residual adhesive remaining on the teeth that were treated with conventional acid etching than in the CSE and EP3 groups. In the TBP group, the failure sites were similar to those of the AE group but different from those of the CSE group.     

Effect of dentin primer on shear bond strength of composite resin to moist and dry enamel

The etched enamel-composite resin bond is the most reliable bond known to us. Moisture and dentin primers are the two most important variables that can interfere with this bond. This study investigated the effect of dentin primer on bond strengths of composite resin to moist and dry enamel. One hundred freshly extracted molar teeth were used for shear bond strength testing. The teeth were mounted in phenolic rings with an approximal enamel surface exposed. The exposed enamel surface on each tooth was flattened using 320- 400- and 600-grit silicon carbide papers and etched using 34-38% phosphoric acid gel. The teeth were then divided into 10 groups (n = 10). Four groups were assigned to each of the two dentin bonding systems, Scotchbond Multi-Purpose and OptiBond FL. Two groups were assigned to the single-bottle bonding agent (Single Bond). Each bonding system was tested on moist and dry enamel. OptiBond FL and Scotchbond MP were tested with and without the use of primer. All samples were thermocycled and tested in shear. Fracture analysis was performed using a binocular microscope. For scanning electron microscopy, approximal samples of enamel (1 mm thick) were flattened, etched, and bonded with and without primer on moist and dry enamel. A 1 mm-thick layer of Z100 was bonded to the specimens, which were then immersed in 10% HCl for 24 hours to dissolve the enamel. The specimens were viewed under a scanning electron microscope. Results indicated that the use of primer on dry enamel did not significantly affect (P > 0.05) shear bond strengths for the two bonding systems, Scotchbond MP (primed 24.10 +/- 4.83 MPa, unprimed 29.57 +/- 7.49 MPa) and OptiBond FL (primed 26.82 +/- 4.44, unprimed 25.66 +/- 2.95). However, the use of primer was found to be essential on moist enamel to obtain acceptable bond strengths with both Scotchbond MP (primed 25.61 +/- 10.29 MPa, unprimed 3.26 +/- 0.95 MPa) and OptiBond FL (primed 30.28 +/- 3.49 MPa, unprimed 8.37 +/- 3.31 MPa). Moisture on enamel did not significantly affect (P > 0.05) bond strengths for the single-bottle bonding agent, Single Bond (moist enamel 31.34 +/- 9.03 MPa, dry enamel 27.93 +/- 5.41 MPa). Fracture analysis revealed that most fractures were adhesive or mixed, with a greater percentage being cohesive for the groups with dry enamel or with primer on moist enamel. Scanning electron micrographs corroborated the shear bond strength data. The specimens without primer on moist enamel showed very poor penetration of adhesive and composite resin into the etched enamel microporosities.     

Can previously bleached teeth be bonded safely using self-etching primer systems?

OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis that there is no statistical significance in (1) bond strength and (2) failure site location with bleached and unbleached enamel prepared with Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer between different time intervals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into three groups of 20 teeth each. Bleaching treatment was performed at two different time intervals (bleaching immediately before bonding and bleaching 30 days before bonding). All brackets were bonded with a self-etching primer system. The shear bond strength of these brackets was measured and recorded in MPa. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after the brackets failed. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi2 tests. RESULTS: The bond strengths of group 1 (no bleaching, mean: 17.60 +/- 7.93 MPa) and group 3 (bleaching 30 days before bonding, mean: 13.95 +/- 5.23 MPa) were significantly higher (P < .05) than that of group 2 (bleaching immediately before bonding, mean: 11.45 +/- 5.25 MPa). No statistically significant differences were found between groups 1 and 3 (P > .05). ARI scores were significantly different among the three groups. In groups 1 and 2, there was a higher frequency of ARI scores of 2 to 4, indicating cohesive failures within the resin. In group 3, the failures were shown to be adhesive (resin/enamel interface) and cohesive characteristics. CONCLUSION: The use of a carbamide peroxide bleaching agent immediately before bonding significantly reduces the shear bond strength values of self-etching primer systems.     

Effect of using a new cyanoacrylate adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

During bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel, conventional adhesive systems use three different agents: an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they need neither a priming agent nor a curing light to bond brackets. Such an approach should be more cost-effective for the clinician and indirectly also for the patient. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of using a cyanoacrylate adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets and on the bracket/adhesive failure mode. The brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to one of two protocols. Group 1: Teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. After applying the primer, the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and were light-cured for 20 seconds. Group 2: Teeth were etched with 35% phosphoric acid. The brackets were then bonded with Smartbond (Gestenco International, G?thenburg, Sweden). The present in vitro findings indicated that the use of the cyanoacrylate adhesive to bond orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface did not result in a significantly different (P = .24) shear bond force (mean = 5.8 +/- 2.4 MPa) as compared to the control group (mean = 5.2 +/- 2.9 MPa). The comparison of the Adhesive Remnant Index scores indicated that there was significantly (P = .006) less residual adhesive remaining on the tooth with the cyanoacrylate than on the tooth with the conventional adhesive system. In conclusion, the new adhesive has the potential to be used to bond orthodontic brackets while reducing the total bonding time.