Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a standardized thermocycling protocol on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive systems: a resin-modified glass ionomer and a composite resin used with a new self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, brackets were bonded to the teeth using Fuji Ortho LC adhesive, and in group 2, the Transbond Plus system was used. The teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, thermocycled between 5 and 55 degrees C, and debonded using a universal testing machine. The enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. RESULTS: The mean SBS for the brackets bonded using the Fuji Ortho LC was 6.4 +/- 4.5 MPa, and the mean SBS for the Transbond Plus system was 6.1 +/- 3.2 MPa. The result of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.207) indicated that there was no significant difference (P = .837) between the two groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores (chi(2) = 0.195) indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different (P = .907) between the two adhesives. CONCLUSION: Although SBS and ARI scores were not significantly different for the two adhesives, clinicians need to take into consideration the other properties of the adhesives before using them.     

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.     

两种光固化正畸黏结剂的黏结性能评价

目的:研究光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂与自酸蚀光固化正畸黏结剂对金属托槽-牙面黏结的特点。方法:60颗离体前磨牙随机分成6组,每组10颗牙,3组用光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂,另3组用自酸蚀光固化复合树脂黏结剂黏结正畸托槽,分别于0.5、24h及冷热循环实验后测试其抗剪强度及黏结剂残留指数,并通过扫描电镜观察树脂—牙釉质面形态。结果:2种材料黏结强度均能超过5MPa。但是,24h自酸蚀光固化正畸黏结剂的强度高于光固化树脂加强型玻璃离子黏结剂的强度(P<0.05)。结论:2种光固化正畸黏结剂能提供正畸临床黏结金属托槽足够的黏结力。     

Early shear bond strength of a one-step self-adhesive on orthodontic brackets

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a self-adhesive universal cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), can be used successfully to bond orthodontic brackets to enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups: 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using RelyX Unicem, and 20 brackets were bonded using the Transbond XT (3M Unitex, Monrovia, Calif) adhesive system. The teeth were debonded within 30 minutes after initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the chi-square test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems. RESULTS: The mean SBS of the brackets bonded using the RelyX Unicem was 3.7 +/- 2.1 MPa and was significantly lower (t = 2.07, P = .048) than the SBS of the brackets bonded with the Transbond system (x = 5.97 +/- 4.2 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (chi(2) = 17.4) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P = .002) with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded with Transbond XT. CONCLUSIONS: The SBS of the self-adhesive universal cement needs to be increased for it to be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets.     

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.     

Influence of Adhesives and Methods of Enamel Pretreatment on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets

Aim

The objective of present study was to examine influence of adhesives and methods of enamel pretreatment on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. The adhesives used were resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements-GIC (Fuji Ortho LC) and composite resin (Transbond XT).

Material and Methods

The experimental sample consisted of 80 extracted human first premolars. The sample was divided into four equal groups, and the metal brackets were bonded with different enamel pretreatments by using two adhesives: group A-10% polyacrylic acid; Fuji Ortho LC, group B–37% phosphoric acid; Fuji Ortho LC, group C–self etching primer; Transbond XT, group D–37% phosphoric acid, primer; Transbond XT. SBS of brackets was measured. After debonding of brackets, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was evaluated.

Results

After the statistical analysis of the collected data was performed (ANOVA; Sheffe post-hoc test), the results showed that significantly lower SBS of the group B was found in relation to the groups C (p=0.031) and D (p=0.026). The results of ARI were similar in all testing groups and it was not possible to determine any statistically significant difference of the ARI (Chi- square test) between all four experimental groups.

Conclusion

The conclusion is that the use of composite resins material with appropriate enamel pretreatment according to manufacturer’s recommendation is the “gold standard” for brackets bonding for fixed orthodontic appliances.Key words: orthodontic brackets, shear strength, adhesive, enamel preparation     

树脂修饰化玻璃离子托槽粘结剂粘结强度的体外研究

目的：评估一种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子托槽粘结剂在牙面不同处理方式和环境下的两次粘结后的剪切强度情况。方法：将新近拔除的105颗上颌第一前磨牙随机均分成7组,按照说明书的要求完成托槽的粘结。对照组牙面用37%的磷酸处理后,用光固化复合树脂粘结剂（3M,Transbond XT）粘结。其它6组牙面分别在37%的磷酸、GC处理剂（GC Self-Conditioner）、和不做任何处理的条件下,分别在干燥和湿润的环境下用树脂修饰化的玻璃离子（RMGIC;Fuji ORTHO LC,GC Corporation,Tokyo,Japan）粘结,所有牙齿均选用同种托槽。托槽粘结24 h后,在万能测力机下以1 mm/min的速度卸载,并记录下数值。除去牙面和托槽底面多余粘结剂后,重复上述过程。每次卸载后检查牙釉质损坏情况。结果：对照组两次剪切强度有较小的差异,其它GC玻璃离子粘结剂组两次剪切强度没有统计学意义。GC粘结剂不做任何处理组在干燥和湿润的环境下其剪切强度存在明显的差异。干燥环境下,37%的磷酸和GC处理剂处理后,GC粘结剂组两次卸载后的牙釉质均出现不同程度的釉裂或釉质脱落。结论：这种树脂修饰化的玻璃离子粘结剂可以在多种条件下用于托槽的粘结。     

Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Conventional adhesive systems use 3 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 product. 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 determine the effects of the use of a self-etch primer on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets and on the bracket/adhesive failure mode. Brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to 1 of 2 protocols. In the control group, 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 the experimental group, a self-etch acidic primer (ESPE Dental AG, Seefeld, Germany) was placed on the enamel for 15 seconds and gently evaporated with air, as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT as in the first group. The present in vitro findings indicate that the use of a self-etch primer to bond orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface resulted in a significantly (P = .004) lower, but clinically acceptable, shear bond force (mean, 7.1 +/- 4.4 MPa) as compared with the control group (mean, 10.4 +/- 2.8 MPa). The comparison of the adhesive remnant index scores indicated that there was significantly (P = .006) more residual adhesive remaining on the teeth that were treated with the new self-etch primer than on those teeth that were bonded with the use of the conventional adhesive system.     

Comparison of the shear bond strength of 2 self-etch primer/adhesive systems.

Conventional adhesive systems use 3 different agents-an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin for bonding 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 mix and no-mix self-etch primers/bonding systems on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to the following protocols. In group I, a self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system, Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), was applied on the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer; it has 2 components that must be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT and light-cured for 20 seconds. In group II, a no-mix self-etch bracket adhesive system, Ideal 1 (GAG International, Islandia, NY), was applied to the teeth as suggested by the manufacturer. The self-etch primer has 1 component that does not need to be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with the adhesive and light-cured for 20 seconds. The in vitro findings indicated that the shear bond strength comparisons (t = 0.681) of the 2 adhesive systems were not significantly different (P =.501). The mean shear bond strength of the 2-component acid etch primer was 5.9 +/- 2.7 MPa, and the mean for the 1-component system was 6.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. The clinician should consider the bond strength and the ease of application of the various components of the bracket bonding systems available on the market.     

Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding?

The study aims to determine the shear bond strength (SBS) values of different flowable composites (Pulpdent Flows-Rite, 3M Filtek Flow, and Heraeus Kulzer Flow Line) in comparison with a conventional orthodontic adhesive and the bond failure sites of these composites. Eighty extracted human premolars were divided into four groups of 20 teeth each. Brackets were bonded to the teeth in each test group with different composites, according to the manufacturer's instructions. SBS values of these brackets were recorded (in MPa) using a universal testing machine. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after the failure of brackets. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey honestly significant difference, and chi-square tests. SBS values of groups 1 (Transbond XT), 2 (Flows-Rite), 3 (Flow), and 4 (Flow Line) were found to be 17.10 +/- 2.48 MPa, 6.60 +/- 3.2 MPa, 7.75 +/- 2.9 MPa, and 8.53 +/- 3.50 MPa, respectively. The results of this study demonstrate that the orthodontic adhesive (Transbond XT) had higher SBS values than the flowable composites. Results of ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the groups (P < .05). The SBS values were significantly lower in all flowable composite groups than the orthodontic adhesive. ARI scores were significantly different between the orthodontic adhesive and all the flowable groups investigated. The use of flowable composites is not advocated for orthodontic bracket bonding because of significantly lower SBS values achieved.     

Effect of etching and light-curing time on the shear bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of etching and light-curing time on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) upon debonding of orthodontic brackets. Sixty-eight bovine permanent incisors were obtained and embedded in acrylic resin. Edgewise metallic brackets were bonded to the teeth with Fuji Ortho LC RMGIC. The specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups, using the following etching and light-curing times: G1: 10% polyacrylic acid and 40 s (control); G2: 37% phosphoric acid and 40 s; G3: 10% polyacrylic acid and 50 s; and G4: 37% phosphoric acid and 50 s. Shear test was performed at 0.5 mm/min and the ARI was assessed. G2 (3.6 ± 0.98 MPa) presented significantly higher (p<0.05) SBS than G1 (2.76 ± 0.86 MPa) and G4 (2.86 ± 0.68 MPa), and there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between G2 and G3 (2.94 ± 0.67 MPa). ARI presented prevalence of scores 2 and 3 in all groups. RMGIC SBS enhanced with 37% phosphoric acid etching and 40 s light-curing time, but this did not occur when the light-curing time was increased, regardless of the acid used. RMGIC presented prevalence of failures at the adhesive/bracket interface.     

Bracket bond strength and cariostatic potential of an experimental resin adhesive system containing Portland cement

Abstract Objective: To determine if a new experimental resin-based material containing Portland cement (PC) can help prevent enamel caries while providing adequate shear bond strength (SBS). Materials and Methods: Brackets were bonded to human premolars with experimental resin-based adhesive pastes composed of three weight rations of resin and PC powder (PC 30, 7∶3; PC 50, 5∶5; PC 70, 3∶7; n = 7). Self-etching primer (SEP) adhesive (Transbond Plus) and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) adhesive (Fuji Ortho FC Automix) were used for comparison. All of the bonded teeth were subjected to alternating immersion in demineralizing (pH?4.55) and remineralizing (pH?6.8) solutions for 14?days. The SBS for each sample was examined, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was calculated. The hardness and elastic modulus of the enamel were determined by a nanoindenter at 20 equidistant depths from the external surface at 100?μm from the bracket edge. Data were compared by one-way analysis of variance and a chi-square test. Results: PC 50 and PC 70 showed significantly greater SBS than Fuji Ortho FC Automix, although Transbond Plus showed significantly greater SBS than other bonding systems. No significant difference in the ARI category was observed among the five groups. For specimens bonded with PC 50 and PC 70, the hardness and elastic modulus values in most locations were equivalent to those of Fuji Ortho FC Automix. Conclusions: Experimental resin-based bonding material containing PC provides adequate SBS and a caries-preventive effect equivalent to that of the RMGIC adhesive system.     

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.     

Comparison of shear bond strength of two self-etch primer/adhesive systems

Orthodontic brackets 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 combine the conditioning, priming, and adhesive agents into a single application. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of using one-step and two-step self-etch primer/adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to one of two protocols. Group I (control): a two-step self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system was used, Transbond Plus was applied to the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and light cured for 20 seconds. Group II: a one-step self-etch, self-adhesive resin cement system, Maxcem, was applied directly to the bracket. The self-etch primer/adhesive is made of two components that mix automatically during application. The brackets were then light cured for 20 seconds. The mean shear bond strength of the two-step acid-etch primer/adhesive was 5.9 +/- 2.7 Mpa and the mean for the one-step system was 3.1 +/- 1.7 MPa. The in vitro findings of this study indicated that the shear bond strengths (t = 3.79) of the two adhesive systems were significantly different (P = .001). One-step adhesive systems could potentially be advantageous for orthodontic purposes if their bond strength can be improved.     

Effect of applying a sustained force during bonding orthodontic brackets on the adhesive layer and on shear bond strength

The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of applying a sustained seating force during bonding on the adhesive layer and on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. Forty human premolars divided into two groups were included in the study. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to the premolars with Transbond XT light cure adhesive and Transbond Plus Self Etch Primer (SEP). The brackets in both groups were subjected to an initial seating force of 300 g for 3 seconds, sufficient to position the bracket. The seating force was maintained throughout the 40 seconds of light curing in group 2. SBS was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with a shear blade using an Instron testing unit at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. A Student's t-test was used to compare the bond strength of the two groups and a chi-square test to compare the frequencies of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The mean SBS was significantly different between the two groups (P=0.025). The bond strength was higher (mean 8.15±0.89 MPa) in group 2 compared with group 1 (mean 7.39±1.14 MPa). There was no significant difference (P=0.440) in the ARI scores between the two groups. Applying a sustained seating force during orthodontic bracket bonding improves bond strength but does not change the distribution of the ARI scores.     

Comparison of fluoride release protocols for in-vitro testing of 3 orthodontic adhesives.

The objective of this study was to compare the fluoride release of 3 orthodontic adhesives using disks and bracketed teeth with different storage protocols. The adhesives used were a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America, Aslip, Ill), a polyacid-modified composite resin (PMCR)(Assure; Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill), and a composite control, Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal and lingual surfaces of 120 extracted human premolars. Five plastic containers holding 4 teeth (8 brackets) were used for each adhesive protocol. The samples were stored in containers holding 4 mL of deionized water at 37 degrees C for 28 and 84 days for the brackets and disks, respectively. The bracketed samples released larger initial amounts of fluoride compared with the disk samples during the first 5 to 6 days for both fluoride-releasing adhesives. The PMCR (Assure) released more fluoride (mg/cm(2)/day) than did the RMGI (Fuji Ortho LC) in all protocols with the exception of daily protocols when values diminished below the RMGI values near the 24th day and between the 56th and the 70th days for the bracketed and disk samples, respectively. Inconsistent values for fluoride release were noted in the bracket and disk samples when compared with daily versus cumulative water changes. Daily water changes revealed higher fluoride release levels (brackets), but this trend was not evident in the disk samples. Daily water changes may yield more clinically relevant data on fluoride release.     

Bond strength of an amorphous calcium phosphate-containing orthodontic adhesive

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether an amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP)-containing adhesive has an acceptable level of shear bond strength to be used as an orthodontic adhesive. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty extracted premolars were randomly divided into three groups for orthodontic bonding. Group 1 used a composite resin adhesive (Transbond XT), group 2 was bonded with an ACP-containing adhesive (Aegis Ortho), and group 3 used a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji Ortho LC). All bonded teeth were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 40 +/- 2 hours prior to debonding. Shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were recorded for each specimen. RESULTS: The mean shear bond strengths for the three test groups were: group 1 (15.2 +/- 3.6 MPa), group 2 (6.6 +/- 1.5 MPa), and group 3 (8.3 +/- 2.8 MPa). A one-way analysis of variance showed a significant difference in bond strengths between the groups. A post hoc Tukey test showed group 1 to be significantly (P < .001) greater than groups 2 and 3. A Kruskal-Wallis test and a Mann-Whitney U-test showed groups 1 and 3 exhibited lower ARI scores than group 2, but a majority of specimens in each group had greater than 50% of the cement removed along with the bracket during debonding. CONCLUSIONS: The ACP-containing adhesive demonstrated a low, but satisfactory bond strength needed to function as an orthodontic adhesive.     

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.     

Shear bond strength and residual adhesive after orthodontic bracket debonding

OBJECTIVE: To compare the shear bond strength and determine the area of residual adhesive on teeth after the debonding of brackets bonded with two types of orthodontic adhesives. These were a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji ORTHO LC, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and a resin applied as a precoated bracket (APC bracket, 3M Unitek GmbH, Seefeld, Germany). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 60 premolar teeth were randomly divided into two groups, and brackets were bonded according to the manufacturers' instructions. In group 1, the teeth were conditioned using 10% polyacrylic acid, and the brackets were bonded using Fuji Ortho LC in wet condition. In group 2, the teeth were etched using 37% phosphoric acid, and the APC brackets were bonded. Bond strength was measured using a testing instrument (2000S, Lloyds Instruments, Fareham, England) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and the residual adhesive was quantified using a three-dimensional laser scanning instrument. RESULTS: The Mann-Whitney test showed that the median bond strength of group 1 was significantly lower than that of group 2 (P < .001). A Pearson chi-square test of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) revealed a significant difference among the groups tested. All the adhesives in group 1 failed at the enamel/adhesive interface (100%), whereas group 2 exhibited cohesive failure of the adhesive (90%). CONCLUSIONS: The bond strength values obtained with the RMGIC were above the minimum values suggested in the literature to achieve a clinically effective adhesion in orthodontics.     

Clinical acceptability of two self-etch adhesive resins for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether two self-adhesive resin cements, Clearfil SA and RelyX, can be used to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel.

Materials and methods: Seventy extracted premolars were custom mounted, cleaned and randomly divided into three groups. In group 1 (control), orthodontic brackets were bonded to 25 premolars using the Transbond Plus and Transbond XT two step adhesive systerm adhesive. In group 2, brackets were bonded to 25 premolars using Clearfil SA. In group 3, brackets were bonded to 20 premolars using RelyX. The brackets were debonded using a universal testing machine and shear bond strengths recorded. After debonding, each tooth was examined under 20× magnification to evaluate the residual adhesive remaining. An ANOVA with Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to determine whether there were significant differences in shear bond strength between the groups. A Kruskal–Wallis Test and a Bonferroni multiple comparison procedure were used to compare the bond failure modes (adhesive remnant index scores) between the groups.

Results: The mean shear bond strengths for the brackets bonded using Clearfil SA and RelyX were 5·930±1·840 and 3·334±1·953 MPa, respectively. Both were significantly lower than that for the brackets bonded using Transbond (7·875±3·611 MPa). Both self-etch adhesive resin cement groups showed a greater incidence of bracket failure at the enamel/adhesive interface while the Transbond group showed a higher incidence at the bracket/adhesive interface.

Conclusions: The shear bond strengths of the self-etch adhesive resin cements may be inadequate to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel.