An in vitro investigation into the use of resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cements as orthodontic bonding agents

This in vitro study was designed to determine the effect of time on the measured mean force to debond when brackets were bonded using resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cements and to compare them with a light-cured diacrylate. Changes in surface topography and composition of the cements were also investigated. Stainless steel orthodontic brackets were bonded to 160 upper premolar teeth in four test groups: Transbond, Fuji Ortho LC, and 3 M Multi-Cure with and without enamel etching. Shear bond testing to failure was performed after 1 hour, 1 week, 1 month, and 1 year. The first three groups were then rebonded and stored for the same time periods before being shear tested again. Debond force was recorded in Newtons and the locus of bond failure was scored using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Surface topography and composition of the test materials were also studied at time periods of 1 day, and 1, 6, and 18 months, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray analysis (EDAX). The mean force to debond (N) was observed to increase with time in all four test groups, with there being little significant difference between the groups. When the same brackets were rebonded, the mean force to debond reduced. Surface topography and compositional changes over time were only observed with the resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cements. Resin-modified glass poly(alkenoate) cements have a mean force to debond comparable with diacrylate bonding agents. However, unlike diacrylates they undergo surface changes with time, the significance of which is unknown.     

Bonded molar tubes--an in vitro evaluation

This study aimed to evaluate the mean shear bond strength of molar tubes with micro-etched bases bonded with either a compomer (Ultra Band-Lok), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (3M Multi-Cure or Fuji Ortho LC), or a light-cured resin adhesive (Transbond). The amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth surface following tube removal was assessed also. Finally, survival time of molar tubes bonded with each bonding agent was assessed following simulated mechanical fatigue in a ball mill. A total of 120 extracted human third molars were collected and randomly divided into 4 test groups. Thirty teeth (20 to assess debonding force and 10 to assess survival time) were bonded with each adhesive according to the manufacturers' instructions. Debonding was carried out using a Nene M3000 testing machine with a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean shear bond strength of tubes bonded with Transbond was significantly less than that of those bonded with 3M Multi-Cure (P = .0036) or Fuji Ortho LC (P < .0001). Tubes bonded with Ultra Band-Lok also had significantly lower mean shear bond strength than those bonded with Fuji Ortho LC (P = .020). Distribution of adhesive remnant index scores only differed significantly between tubes bonded with 3M Multi-Cure or Transbond. Only I molar tube, bonded with Transbond, debonded in the ball mill at 5 hours, but at 50 hours there was no significant difference in the survival time of tubes bonded with any of the bonding agents. Compomer or resin-modified glass ionomer cements appear to be viable alternatives to light-cured resin adhesive for bonding molar tubes.     

A self-conditioner for resin-modified glass ionomers in bonding orthodontic brackets

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new self-etch conditioner used with resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) in bonding orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into three groups. In group 1 (control), 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer; in group 2, 20 brackets were bonded using an RMGI with a 10% polyacrylic acid conditioner. In group 3, 20 brackets were bonded using Fuji Ortho LC with a new no-rinse self-conditioner for RMGIs. The same bracket type was used on all groups. The teeth were debonded in shear mode using a universal testing machine, and the amount of residual adhesive remaining on each tooth was evaluated. Analysis of variance was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS), and the chi(2) test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the SBS (P = .556) between the groups. The mean SBS for Transbond Plus was 8.6 +/- 2.6 MPa, for Fuji Ortho LC using 10% polyacrylic acid 9.1 +/- 4.6 MPa, and for Fuji Ortho LC using GC Self-conditioner 9.9 +/- 4.1 MPa. The comparisons of the ARI scores between the three groups (chi(2) = 35.5) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P < .001), with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded using Transbond. Conclusions: The new self-etch conditioner can be used with an RMGI to successfully bond brackets. In addition, brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC resulted in less residual adhesive remaining on the teeth.     

Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite.

PURPOSE: Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets is one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment. Glass ionomer cements have been shown to decrease enamel demineralization adjacent to brackets and bands but do not exhibit bond strengths comparable to resin composites. The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a fluoride-releasing resin composite versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets. METHODS: Forty-five teeth were randomly assigned to 3 groups of 15 teeth. Fifteen were bonded with Concise (3M), a non-fluoride-releasing resin composite (control); 15 teeth were bonded with Light Bond (Reliance), a fluoride-releasing resin composite; and 15 teeth were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corporation), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The teeth were placed in an artificial caries solution to create lesions. Following sectioning of the teeth in a buccolingual direction, polarized light microscopy was utilized to evaluate enamel demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket. The area of the lesion was measured 100 microns from the orthodontic bracket and bonding agent. RESULTS: MANOVA (P < .0001) and Duncan's test (P < .05) indicated the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) and the fluoride-releasing resin composite (Light Bond) had significantly less adjacent enamel demineralization than the non-fluoride-releasing resin composite control. However, there was no significant difference between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the fluoride-releasing resin composite. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that Fuji Ortho LC and Light Bond exhibit significant inhibition of adjacent demineralization compared to the non-fluoride-releasing control.     

An in vivo study to compare a plasma arc light and a conventional quartz halogen curing light in orthodontic bonding

The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of a plasma arc lamp with a conventional tungsten quartz halogen lamp in orthodontic bonding. Twenty consecutive patients had their brackets bonded either with Transbond XT (n = 10) or Fuji Ortho LC (n = 10). In total, 352 teeth were bonded, 176 in each group. Using a randomized cross-mouth control study design, where diagonally opposite quadrants were assigned a particular treatment, the bonds were then either cured with the control light, namely a halogen lamp, or a plasma arc lamp. The halogen light was used for 20 seconds per tooth and the plasma arc lamp for 3 seconds per tooth. The measurement parameter used was bond failure and the patients were monitored for a period of 6 months following initial bond placement.In the Transbond XT group, the proportion of bond failures was 3.41 per cent for both the halogen and the plasma arc lamp. For the Fuji Ortho LC group, the proportions were 11.4 and 10.2 per cent, respectively. No difference was observed with respect to in-service bond failure proportions between bonds cured with the plasma arc or the conventional halogen lamp, irrespective of the bonding agent. Use of the plasma arc lamp could therefore lead to considerable savings in clinical time. However, this must be weighed against the increased purchase price of the plasma arc lamp.     

An investigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain

This study assessed bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain teeth using two different surface preparation techniques and comparing two bonding systems, Fuji Ortho L.C. and Transbond. Four groups of 20 porcelain premolar teeth were bonded with metal orthodontic brackets (0.022 inch Minitwin, 3M Unitek) according to the following protocol: Transbond with a phosphoric acid etch (group 1), Transbond with a hydrofluoric acid etch (group 2), Fuji Ortho L.C. with a hydrofluoric acid etch (group 3), and Fuji Ortho L.C. with a phosphoric acid etch (group 4). All groups were bonded with a silane coupling agent. The teeth were debonded with an Instron universal testing machine. Bond strength, site of bond failure and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were recorded for each group. Differences between groups were analysed statistically. The composite resin groups (groups 1 and 2) had the highest mean bond strength values at 7.9 and 9.7 MPa, respectively. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement groups (RMGIC; groups 3 and 4) had the lowest mean bond strength values at 6.3 and 1.8 MPa, respectively. The mean bond strength of group 3 was significantly lower than all other groups (P < 0.0001). The Fuji groups had also significantly (P < 0.001) lower ARI scores than the composite groups (groups 1 and 2). Most samples experienced porcelain surface damage, except group 4. In conclusion, the highest bond strength levels were achieved with a conventional composite resin cement (groups 1 and 2). No significant differences in bond strength were found between the hydrofluoric and phosphoric acid etch technique.     

An in vitro comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and a composite adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets

The shear bond strength (SBS) of a light-cured, resin-reinforced glass ionomer and a composite adhesive in combination with a self-etching primer was compared after different setting times to evaluate when orthodontic wires could be placed. Additionally, the fracture site after debonding was assessed using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Eighty freshly extracted human premolars were used. Twenty teeth were randomly assigned to each of four groups: (1) brackets bonded with Transbond XT with a Transbond Plus etching primer and debonded within 5 minutes; (2) brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC and debonded within 5 minutes; (3) brackets bonded as for group 1 and debonded within 15 minutes; (4) brackets bonded as for group 2 and debonded within 15 minutes. The SBS of each sample was determined with an Instron machine. The mean SBS were, respectively: (1) 8.8 +/- 2 MPa; (2) 6.6 +/- 2.5 MPa; (3) 11 +/- 1.6 MPa and (4) 9.6 +/- 1.6 MPa. Interpolating the cumulative fracture probability by means of a Weibull analysis, the 10 per cent probabilities of fracture for the groups were found to be attained for shear stresses of 6.1, 3.1, 8.3 and 7.1 MPa, respectively. Chi-square testing of the ARI scores revealed that the nature of the remnant did not vary significantly with time, but the type of bonding material could generally be distinguished in leaving more or less than 10 per cent of bonding material on the tooth. After debonding, the Transbond system was likely to leave adhesive on at least 10 per cent of the bonded area of the tooth. The present findings indicate that brackets bonded with either Transbond XT in combination with Transbond Plus etching primer and Fuji Ortho LC had adequate bond strength at 5 minutes and were even stronger 15 minutes after initial bonding.     

In vitro study of 24-hour and 30-day shear bond strengths of three resin–glass ionomer cements used to bond orthodontic brackets

Interest in using composite resin–glass ionomer hybrid cements as orthodontic bracket adhesives has grown because of their potential for fluoride release. The purpose of this pilot study was to compare shear bond strengths of three resin–glass ionomer cements (Advance, Fuji Duet, Fuji Ortho LC) used as bracket adhesives with a composite resin 24 hours and 30 days after bonding. The amount of adhesive remaining on the debonded enamel surface was scored for each adhesive. Mesh-backed stainless-steel brackets were bonded to 100 extracted human premolars, which were stored in artificial saliva at 37° C until being tested to failure in a testing machine. The hybrid cements, with one exception, had bond strengths similar to those of the composite resin at 24 hours and 30 days. Fuji Ortho LC had significantly lower bond strengths (ANOVA p ≤ 0.05) than the other adhesives at 24 hours and 30 days when it was bonded to unetched, water-moistened enamel. Adhesive-remnant scores were similar for all cements, except for cement Fuji Ortho LC when it was bonded to unetched enamel. The resin–glass ionomer cements we tested appear to have bond strengths suitable for routine use as orthodontic bracket–bonding adhesives. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;113:620-24.)     

Bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to restorative resin composite surfaces

In orthodontic practice, it is not uncommon to bond brackets to resin composite restorations. With this in mind, this study was designed to compare first the shear/peel strengths of metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets bonded to microfilled resin composite (RC), using either a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC), a chemical-cured composite (System 1+) or a light-cured composite adhesive (Transbond XT); and then to examine the effects of thermocycling on the shear/peel strengths of these systems. Four different brackets were used: two stainless steel (Victory and Optimesh), one ceramic (Transcend 6000) and one polycarbonate (Spirit MB). Seventy-two specimens of each bracket were divided into three groups for bonding with one of the three adhesives. Half the specimens from each group were also thermocycled. Mean shear/peel bond strengths were found to be significantly different for the four different brackets, although not influenced by the three adhesives used within each group. All groups were found to have clinically-acceptable mean bond strengths, except for Spirit MB-System 1+. After thermocycling, both Optimesh-Transbond XT and Victory-System 1+ groups showed superior mean bond strengths (26.8 and 24.4 MPa, respectively) when compared with all other groups (p < 0.05). Applying the Weibull survival analysis for groups utilising Victory, Transcend 6000 and Spirit MB brackets, those with 90 per cent or greater probabilities of survival included Victory-System 1+, Transcend 6000-Fuji Ortho LC, Victory-Fuji Ortho LC and Spirit MB-Transbond XT groups. In all groups, bond failure was mainly (64 per cent) cohesive within the RC restorative surface. The thermocycled Spirit MB-Transbond XT group had the highest frequency of undamaged RC failure interfaces. Despite the focus of this study being on bond strength and the potential for surface damage, it was noted that these properties should always be considered alongside other factors such as the strength of the bracket itself, friction within the bracket slot, patients' wishes, cost of the materials and the presenting malocclusion.     

Metallic brackets bonded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements under different enamel conditions

OBJECTIVE: To assess the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded with either Fuji Ortho or Ortho Glass LC resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements to enamel surfaces under different conditions, namely, enamel without etching, enamel conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid and enamel conditioned with Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TPSEP). MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and five bovine inferior incisors were divided into seven groups (n = 15). In group 1 (control) Transbond XT was used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In groups 2, 3, and 4 all using Fuji Ortho LC, the brackets were bonded, respectively, to enamel nonetched, enamel etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and enamel etched with TPSEP. In groups 5, 6, and 7, the bonding was performed using Ortho Glass LC under the same enamel conditions observed in the other experimental groups. After 24 hours, shear bond strength tests were performed for all samples at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. RESULTS: The results (MPa) showed no statistically significant difference between groups 1, 3, and 4 (P > .05). However, such groups were statistically superior to the others (P < .05). No statistically significant difference was observed between groups 2, 6, and 7 (P > .05). Group 5 showed the lowest shear strength value, which was also statistically inferior to the other groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Regardless of the enamel treatment, Fuji Ortho LC yielded shear strength values superior to those from Ortho Glass LC.     

Orthodontic bonding to porcelain: a comparison of bonding systems

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces has been plagued by failure. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the bond strengths of several different bonding systems when bonding orthodontic brackets to porcelain-fused-to-metal surfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Fifty natural glazed feldspathic porcelain-fused-to-noble metal disks 6 mm in diameter and 3 mm in height (1 mm metal and 2 mm porcelain) were fabricated and divided into 5 groups of 10. A different bonding system (GC America Fuji LC, American Ortho Spectrum, 3M Transbond, TP Orthodontics Python, and Kerr Herculite) was assigned to each group, and 50 identical orthodontic brackets were bonded (with the above mentioned systems) to each disk according to each manufacturer's instructions. Each system except TP Orthodontics Python conditioned with phosphoric acid (35% to 37.5%) and all systems were primed with silane before bonding. The specimens were subjected to gradual shear forces up to 123 N in a universal testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass.) until fracture. The shear bond strength of the bonding systems between the porcelain surface and the bracket was measured in megapascals (MPa). Failures were observed via a Zeiss optical microscope (10x); Tukey's HSD Test and analysis of variance were used to determine significance between the bonding systems at P<.05 level of significance. RESULTS: Failure of all of specimens was adhesive between the porcelain surface and the bonding agents. On the basis of a current literature review, bonding systems were categorized as clinically acceptable if they had a shear bond strength of 6 to 8 MPa. The 3M Transbond Bonding System, American Orthodontics Spectrum Bonding System, and GC America Fuji Ortho LC Bonding System performed within this clinically acceptable range (6 to 8 MPa), whereas Kerr Herculite Bonding System and TP Orthodontics Python Bonding System did not (2 to 4 MPa). The bond strengths of GC America Fuji Ortho LC, 3M Transbond, and American Orthodontics Spectrum were significantly greater (mean = 2.3 times) than TP Orthodontics Python or Kerr Herculite bonding systems. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this study, the results reaffirm the regimen of conditioning with phosphoric acid and priming with silane before bonding orthodontic brackets to feldspathic porcelain fused to noble metal. All products indicated for this purpose may not achieve satisfactory bond strengths; however, because they do not all include the critical steps of conditioning with phosphoric acid and priming with silane. The 3M Transbond Bonding System, American Orthodontics Spectrum Bonding System, and GC America Fuji Ortho LC Bonding System performed within the clinically acceptable range (6 to 8 MPa), whereas Kerr Herculite Bonding System and TP Orthodontics Python Bonding System did not (2 to 4 MPa).     

Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study.

The objectives of this study were (1) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America, Alsip, Ill) after conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive (Light Bond; Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) bonded with 37% phosphoric acid, (2) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives, (3) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI), and (4) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid, with scanning electron microscopy. In the in vitro study, 50 extracted premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups: brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours. Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test. The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were randomly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique. Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function. The in vitro study results showed significant differences (P <.05) among the adhesives and the debond times. Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours (18.46 +/- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 +/- 1.85 MPa) and 30 minutes (16.19 +/- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 +/- 1.93 MPa). Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive (4.9 vs 4.1). For the in vivo study, no significant differences in failure rate, sex, or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives. These results suggest that, compared with conventional resin, brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro. However, similar survival rates of the 2 materials studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinically. The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding.     

Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC.

The objective of this study was to compare 3 orthodontic adhesives in the areas of shear-peel bond strength, location of adhesive failure, and extent of enamel cracking before bonding and after debonding of orthodontic brackets. The adhesives included a composite resin control (Transbond XT; 3M/Unitek, St Paul, Minn), a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America Corp, Alsip, Ill), and a polyacid-modified composite resin under dry and saliva-contaminated conditions (Assure; Reliance Orthodontic Products Inc, Itasca, Ill). Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces of 160 (4 groups of 40) human premolars. The bonded teeth were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and thermocycled for 24 hours before debonding with a Universal Instron (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass) testing machine. The extent of cracking in the buccal surfaces was evaluated under 16x magnification before bonding and after debonding. Although the bond strength of the composite resin control (20.19 MPa) was significantly greater (P <.05) than that of the adhesives in the other groups, clinically acceptable shear-peel bond strengths were found for all adhesives (Fuji Ortho LC = 13.57 MPa, Assure-dry = 10.74 MPa, Assure-wet = 10.99 MPa). The bond strength for the Assure adhesive was not significantly affected by saliva contamination. The sample of extracted premolars used in this study displayed a greater frequency of buccal surface enamel cracking (46.7%) than that reported in the literature for in vivo premolars (7.8%-10.2%), which was possibly due to the extraction process. The frequency of enamel cracking in a subset of this sample (n = 34) increased from 46.4% at prebonding to 62.4% at postdebonding as a result of the forces of debonding.     

Glass ionomer cements as luting agents for orthodontic brackets

The objectives of the present study were to (1) assess the shear bond strengths of resin-reinforced glass ionomer Fuji Ortho LC and GC Fuji Ortho cements under differing conditions and (2) compare their bonding performance with that of conventional resin composite bonding systems. A sample of 264 bovine incisors was divided into 22 groups of 12 teeth each and bonded with SPEED central incisor brackets. Enamel surfaces of the teeth in the two experimental groups were conditioned according to the manufacturer's instructions; moreover, groups unconditioned before bonding were also included under both wet and dry conditions. A self-cure composite resin (Phase II) and a light-cure composite resin (Transbond XT) served as controls and were etched with 37% phosphoric acid and bonded in a dry field. After incubation at 37 degrees C for 24 hours and for seven days, the specimens were tested to failure with a shear force in an Instron machine. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to assess the amount of resin left on the enamel surfaces after debonding. Selected specimens were examined using scanning electron microscopy. Statistical analyses included analysis of variance tests, t-tests, and correlation coefficient calculations and showed that no significant difference existed between the glass ionomer cements under wet or dry conditions, provided the enamel was conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid before bonding. Both glass ionomer cements were thus acceptable for bonding. Transbond XT had the highest mean shear bond strength irrespective of the incubation period. A positive correlation was obtained between the ARI scores and bond strength.     

A twelve-month clinical trial comparing the bracket failure rates of light-cured resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive and acid-etch chemical-cured composite

A clinical study was undertaken to compare the failure rate over a twelve-month period of orthodontic brackets bonded with a light-cured resin-modified glass-ionomer (Fuji Ortho LC-GC International Japan) and an acid-etch chemically-cured two-paste composite (Orthodontic Concise-3M USA). Failure rates of 6.1 per cent and 5.4 per cent respectively were reported, with no statistically significant difference between the two adhesives. This finding, along with the relative ease of use and possible advantages of reduced risk of peri-bracket demineralisation, suggests that the resin-modified glass-ionomer adhesive may become more popular as a bracket adhesive.     

A comparative in vitro study of the strength of directly bonded brackets using different curing techniques

The aim of this study was to compare, by shear testing, the bond strengths after 1 and 24 hours of a light-cured resin (Enlight) and a light-cured glass ionomer cement GIC (Fuji Ortho LC) using various polymerization lamps (halogen, high performance halogen, xenon, and diode) for the direct bonding of brackets. The self-curing resin (Concise) was used as the control. The analysis was carried out using the SPSS program. For group comparison purposes, the single factor variance analysis (ANOVA) and the post-hoc test (Tukey's HSD) were used. The level of significance was established at P < 0.05. When comparing two mean values the t-test for independent random samples was employed. All polymerization lamps achieved the minimum bond strength of 5-8 MPa. With Enlight LV, bond strength was dependent on curing time (the halogen lamp achieved the highest bond strength of 10.0 MPa, P < 0.001, with a curing time of 40 seconds. The other lamps showed similar results) and on the mode of cure (the highest bond strength values were achieved by four-sided curing, P= 0.04). Fuji Ortho LC, on the other hand, was independent of the duration of light curing and the type of lamp used. The bond strengths of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) were similar to or somewhat higher than those achieved with light-cured composite resin (P = 0.039) when lamps with short polymerization times were used, but were significantly lower (P< 0.001) when compared with the self-curing composite adhesive. After 24 hours, the bond strengths of all adhesives showed a significant increase: Enlight 19 per cent, Fuji Ortho LC 6.6 per cent, Concise 16 per cent. Bond failure occurred for Enlight at the bracket-composite resin adhesive interface in 90 per cent and with Concise in 57 per cent. However, Fuji Ortho LC showed far more cohesive and mixed failures, indicating an improved bond between bracket and cement.     

Shear bond strengths of two resin-modified glass ionomer cements to porcelain.

Shear bond strength of a composite resin adhesive (Concise) and two resin-modified glass ionomer cements (Fuji Ortho LC and Geristore) bonded to porcelain surface was tested. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to 120 porcelain disks (Finesse) etched with 9% HF. Samples were divided into six groups: (1) Concise, (2) Concise/silane, (3) Geristore, (4) Geristore/silane, (5) Fuji, (6) Fuji/silane. No statistical difference in mean shear bond strength was found between silanated Concise (15.8 MPa), Geristore (19.4 MPa), and Fuji (18.5 MPa) groups, which were significantly higher than nonsilanated groups. Porcelain fracture was observed in all silanated groups and nonsilanated Geristore group. We conclude that (1) silane increases bond strength to porcelain significantly for composite resin and resin-modified glass ionomer cement, (2) Concise, Geristore, and Fuji Ortho LC provide comparable shear bond strength to porcelain.     

Changes in the enamel after in vitro debonding of brackets bonded with a modified glass ionomer cement

The aim of this study was to assess the incidence on the enamel behavior of debonding two types of orthodontic brackets, bonded with two different adhesives. Ninety recently extracted human premolars were bonded with two types of brackets (30 Minitrim and 60 Discovery). Two bonding protocols were used. The first one consisted in bonding 30 Minitrim and 30 Discovery brackets on etched and dried enamel surfaces with No Mix orthodontic resin. The second one consisted in bonding 30 Discovery brackets on unetched and wet enamel surfaces with a modified glass ionomer cement, Fuji Ortho LC. Teeth were stored in hydrated ambiance at 37 degrees C for 7 days before debonding. A LLOYD (LR 30K) testing machine was used to evaluate the orthogonal tensile bond strength. The debonded base brackets were examined with a scanning electron microscope (JEOL JSM 6400) and qualitatively analyzed with an OXFORD-LINK-ISIS to assess the site of bond failure and the enamel detachments. An Enamel Detachment Index (EDI) was defined. The results showed that the types of orthodontics brackets and adhesives influenced the bond strength and the enamel detachment. The Discovery/No Mix couple presented higher bond strength (214.9 N) than observed with the Discovery/Fuji Ortho LC (98.5 N) or the Minitrim/No Mix (82.3 N) couples. The surfaces of enamel detachment were insignificant and not extended for all brackets. Nevertheless, the Discovery/No Mix couple presented 42% of an EDI score of 1, compared to the Discovery/Fuji Ortho LC and Minitrim/No Mix couples which presented, respectively, 8% an 20% of an EDI score of 1. The laser sculpted base (Discovery) bonded on unetched and wet enamel surfaces with the modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC) offers a good resistance to debonding forces and preserve enamel integrity.     

Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study.

The purpose of this study was to compare the debonding force of orthodontic brackets bonded with two conventional resin adhesives (Resilience L3 and Light Bond) and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC). For the in vitro part of the study, 80 extracted premolars were randomly divided into four groups. In groups A and B, brackets were bonded to unetched enamel using Fuji Ortho LC cement in wet and dry conditions, respectively. In groups C and D, brackets were bonded to etched enamel using Resilience L3 and Light Bond, respectively. Debonding force was determined using a servohydraulic testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data was analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test at p<0.05. A significant difference was found in debonding force between unetched Fuji Ortho LC and the two conventional resins. There was no significant difference between the two conventional resins or between unetched resin-reinforced glass ionomer in the wet and dry conditions. For the in vivo part of the study, 30 patients were randomly assigned to one of the three bonding material groups. Bracket survival rates and distributions were obtained by following these patients for 1.2 years. Data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function. Bond failure interface was determined using a modified adhesive remnant index (ARI). These results showed no significant difference between survival rates and distributions among the three bonding materials with respect to the type of malocclusion, type of orthodontic treatment, or location of bracket. There were significant differences between survival distributions of males and females in the unetched Fuji Ortho LC group and among type of teeth in the conventional resin groups. The predominant mode of bracket failure for the unetched Fuji Ortho LC cement was at the enamel-adhesive interface, and for conventional resins, the enamel-adhesive interface and the bracket-adhesive interface. These results suggest that resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement can withstand occlusal and orthodontic forces despite having a bond strength lower than that of conventional resin adhesives.     

Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets bonded with hybrid glass ionomer cements: An in vitro study

Enamel demineralization is recognized as a possible side effect of bonding orthodontic brackets with composite resins. Fluoride-releasing restorative materials have been shown to inhibit tooth demineralization. The purpose of this study was to evaluate two fluoride-releasing hybrid glass ionomer bonding agents for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets under two experimental conditions. This in vitro study used 72 extracted human premolars. Twenty-four teeth were bonded with Advance resionomer, 24 were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC hybrid glass ionomer and 24 were bonded with Transbond XT composite resin as the control. The teeth were cycled in an artificial caries challenge three times daily for 30 days. Half of the teeth in each group were brushed twice daily with a fluoridated dentifrice, and the other half were not brushed. Demineralization of enamel surrounding orthodontic brackets was evaluated with polarized light microscopy. Enamel lesions were photographed under maximum illumination. Images were projected, and demineralized areas were traced. Both average depth and area were measured with a sonic digitizer. Analysis of variance (P < .0001) and Duncan’s test (P < .05) indicated significant differences in depth and area of demineralized enamel such that lesion size was: Transbond XT no brush > Transbond XT brush > Advance no brush = Advance brush = Fuji Ortho LC no brush = Fuji Ortho brush. The promising results of this in vitro study warrant further clinical investigation of hybrid glass ionomer adhesives as orthodontic bonding agents to minimize enamel demineralization. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:668-74)