Bond strength comparison of moisture-insensitive primers.

The objective of this in vitro bonding study was to evaluate the effectiveness of 2 moisture-insensitive primers, Assure (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) and MIP (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) compared with a control hydrophobic primer, Transbond XT (3M Unitek). Six groups of 40 premolars were acid etched and bonded using metal orthodontic brackets with the following in vitro protocols: (1) Transbond XT primer and adhesive applied to a noncontaminated surface; (2) Assure primer applied after saliva contamination; (3) MIP primer applied after saliva contamination; (4) Assure primer reapplied after saliva contamination; (5) MIP reapplied after saliva contamination; and (6) Assure adhesive applied after saliva contamination of the primer. All bonded specimens were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and thermocycled for 24 hours before debonding. Brackets were debonded using a shear-peel load on a testing machine, bond strength was measured in megapascals, and bond failure was analyzed by using the adhesive remnant index. In vitro shear-peel bond strengths were acceptable for all groups, and the bond strengths for Assure and MIP were not significantly affected by saliva contamination. The mean shear-peel bond strength of the control (14.82 MPa) was significantly higher (P <.001) than the contaminated groups with the exception of MIP group 5 (14.02 MPa). The values of the Assure primer and adhesive were less than the MIP primer and its respective adhesive; however, the hydrophilic Assure adhesive resin applied to a saliva-contaminated surface had acceptable bond strength. Bond failure analysis (adhesive remnant index) mainly showed adhesive bond failures. An increased frequency of enamel fractures at debond was noted, with the control group (1) and the MIP groups (3 and 5) having 22.5%, 12.5%, and 15%, respectively. The Assure groups had no enamel fractures.     

Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers.

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with Transbond Moisture-Insensitive Primer (MIP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (SEP, 3M Unitek). Hydrophobic Transbond XT primer (XT, 3M Unitek) was used as a control. A total of 162 extracted premolars were collected and divided equally into 9 groups of 18 teeth each, and brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive (3M Unitek) under different experimental conditions: (1) control: etch/dry/XT, (2) etch/dry/MIP, (3) etch/dry/MIP/wet (saliva)/MIP, (4) etch/wet/MIP, (5) etch/wet/MIP/wet/MIP, (6) dry/SEP, (7) dry/SEP/wet/SEP, (8) wet/SEP, and (9) wet/SEP/wet/SEP. Shear bond strength of each sample was examined with a testing machine. The results showed that the control group had the highest mean shear bond strength (group 1, 21.3 +/- 6.8 MPa), followed by the MIP group in a dry field (group 2, 20.7 +/- 5.0 MPa). No significant difference was found between groups 1 and 2. Groups 3 through 9 had similar mean strengths, ranging from 12.7 to 15.0 MPa (P >.05), which were significantly lower than in groups 1 and 2 (P <.05). There was no significant difference in bond-failure site among the 9 groups. It was concluded that (1) Transbond XT adhesive with Transbond XT primer and MIP in a dry field yields similar bond strengths, which are greater than all other groups, (2) saliva contamination significantly lowers the bond strength of Transbond MIP, (3) saliva has no effect on the bond strength of Transbond SEP, (4) Transbond XT adhesive with Transbond MIP and SEP might have clinically acceptable bond strengths in either dry or wet fields.     

Shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets with a moisture-insensitive primer.

The purposes of this study were (1) to evaluate the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to dry and wet (with water and saliva) etched enamel with the use of the moisture-insensitive primer (MIP; Transbond; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and (2) to evaluate the effectiveness of MIP with chemically activated (Concise; 3M Dental Products, St Paul, Minn) and light-activated (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek) resin. One hundred forty-four freshly extracted bovine teeth were divided into 12 groups (n = 12 teeth), and brackets were bonded with either of the 2 resins in combination with the conventional primer or MIP in dry or wet enamel surface conditions. The test specimens were mounted in a screw-driven mechanical testing machine (model 4204; Instron Corp, Canton, Mass) and subjected to a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance. MIP with Concise produced slightly higher bond strengths compared with the conventional primers under wet conditions (MIP vs conventional: saliva, P <.001; water, P =.004). However, MIP in combination with Transbond XT produced comparable bond strengths on both the dry and wet etched enamel (dry, 10.14 MPa; water, 9.69 MPa; saliva, 8.90 MPa). The results of this study suggest that MIP be used only with light-activated composite resins.     

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.     

Tensile bond strength of a light-cured glass ionomer cement when used for bracket bonding under different conditions: an in vitro study

The purpose of this study was to investigate the tensile bond strength of a new light-cured resin reinforced glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC), following the bonding of stainless steel brackets to 40 extracted human premolar teeth under four different enamel surface conditions: (1) non-etched, moistened with water; (2) etched, moistened with water; (3) etched, moistened with human saliva; and (4) etched, moistened with human plasma. The etched surface produced a higher bond strength than the non-etched surface when contaminated with distilled water. Contamination with human saliva resulted in a further increase in bond strength whilst plasma contamination produced an even higher strength. However, one-way analysis of variance showed no statistically significant difference between the various groups. After debonding, enamel and bracket base surfaces were examined for residual adhesive. The location of the adhesive also indicated improved bonding to etched enamel. This investigation shows that regardless of enamel surface pretreatment or environment, Fuji Ortho LC provides an adequate strength for bonding of orthodontic brackets.     

Effect of bonding material, etching time and silane on the bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets to ceramic

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets to feldspathic ceramic with different etching times, bonding materials and with or without silane application. Cylinders of feldspathic ceramic were etched with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 20 or 60 s. For each etching time, half of the cylinders received two layers of silane. Metallic brackets were bonded to the cylinders using Transbond XT (3M Unitek) or Fuji Ortho LC (GC). Light-activation was carried out with total exposure time of 40 s using UltraLume 5. Shear bond strength testing was performed after 24 h storage. Data were submitted to three-way ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to evaluate the amount of adhesive remaining on the ceramic surface at ×8 magnification. Specimens etched for 60 s had significantly higher bond strength compared with 20 s. The application of silane was efficient in increasing the shear bond strength between ceramic and both fixed materials. Transbond XT showed significantly higher (p<0.05) bond strength than Fuji Orth LC. There was a predominance of ARI score 0 (clean ceramic failure surface) for all groups, with an increase in scores 1, 2 and 3 (adhesive material increasingly present on ceramic failure aspect) for the 60-s etching time. In conclusion, 60-s etching time, silane and Transbond XT improved significantly the shear bond strength of brackets to ceramic.     

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.     

New protective polish effects on shear bond strength of brackets

One of the solutions for the problem of white spot lesions has been the application of a polymer coating to the labial enamel surface. The aim of this study is to find out whether the liquid polish BisCover affects the bond strength of brackets bonded with a light-cured system (Transbond XT) and a no-mix system (Unite). Standard stainless steel premolar brackets were bonded to 100 permanent human premolars randomly divided into five equal groups. Two different enamel surface conditions were studied: dry and varnished with BisCover. For each enamel surface condition, two orthodontic adhesive systems were used: a light-cured system (Transbond XT) and a no-mix system (Unite). All teeth were conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds, followed by thorough washing and drying. The teeth in groups 1 and 2 were bonded with Transbond XT and Unite, respectively. For groups 3, 4, and 5, a thin layer of BisCover was applied to the etched enamel with a brush and light cured for 15 seconds. In group 3, a thin layer of Transbond XT primer was applied, whereas in group 5, no additional primer was used on BisCover. In groups 3 and 5, the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive resin. Group 4 was bonded with no-mix Unite. Shear forces were applied to the samples by a Zwick Universal test machine, and bond strengths measured in megapascals. The results revealed that shear bond strengths of the groups did not differ significantly from each other.     

Evaluation of a new self-etching primer on bracket bond strength in vitro

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of a new self-etching primer (Adper Prompt L-pop; 3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Forty extracted human premolars were obtained and randomly divided into two groups of 20 each: group 1 (control), phosphoric acid + Transbond XT primer (3M Unitek, Monróvia, Calif) and group 2, Adper Prompt L-pop. Transbond XT adhesive paste (3M Unitek) was used in both groups for bracket bonding. All products were used according to the manufacturer's instructions. Instron Universal Testing Machine was used to apply an occlusal shear force directly onto the enamel-bracket interface at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The groups were compared using Student's t-test. Mean results and standard deviation for the groups were: group 1 = 16.23 MPa (4.77), group 2 = 13.56 MPa (4.31). No significant difference was observed in the bond strengths of the two groups evaluated (P = .069). However, the adhesive remnant index was significantly less when conditioning the enamel with Adper Prompt L-pop compared with phosphoric acid (P = .0003). The results suggest no difference in bond strength whether a conventional etching and primer or Adper Prompt L-pop is used. The amount of adhesive on the enamel after debonding was significantly less when using Adper Prompt than when using phosphoric acid. These results indicated that Adper Prompt is potentially adequate for orthodontic bonding needs.     

Shear bond strength of precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the shear bond strength or the adhesive remaining on the tooth after debonding between precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: APC Plus precoated brackets and uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive using the self-etching primer Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP). The brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars and categorized into two groups: (1) TPSEP/Transbond XT and (2) TPSEP/APC Plus. Shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant on each tooth after debonding was quantified with image analysis equipment. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations of enamel surfaces treated with TPSEP were also carried out. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed in the shear bond strengths for the two groups evaluated (P < .05). TPSEP/APC Plus left significantly less adhesive on the tooth after debonding than did TPSEP/Transbond XT (P < .05). It was observed that SEM left a porous and potentially retentive surface. CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the bond strength of the two systems tested, but there was a significant difference in the percentage of area of adhesive remaining on the tooth.     

Artificial saliva contamination effects on bond strength of self-etching primers

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the bond strength with or without contamination with artificial saliva when using two different self-etching primers (Transbond Plus and iBond) in comparison with a conventional acid-etching method (37% phosphoric acid and Transbond XT) for bonding of orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred fifty extracted human premolars were randomly allocated to six different groups, with 25 teeth in each group. Orthodontic metal brackets (APC II, Victory Twin 22 UNIV) were used. For contamination, a saliva replacement (Ptyalin) was applied. After contamination the surface was air-dried for 5 seconds and the bonding procedure continued. The bonded teeth were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and then thermocycled for 24 hours before debonding with a universal testing machine. The load was recorded at bond failure. The location of adhesive failure was determined under magnification using the adhesive remnant index (ARI). RESULTS: Clinically acceptable bond strengths were found for all primers used in this study. The contamination by saliva significantly decreased the bond strength when using the conventional acid-etching method (t = 0.0001). Self-etching primers were less influenced by saliva contamination. There was no significant difference in the ARI score among the groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Saliva contamination significantly decreased the bond strength when the conventional acid-etching method was used. The self-etching primers were influenced the least. The bond strengths achieved for the self-etching primers and the conventional etching method after saliva contamination were not significantly different.     

Effect of water and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with conventional, hydrophilic, and self-etching primers

This study assessed the effect of water and saliva contamination on the shear bond strength and bond failure site of 3 different orthodontic primers (Transbond XT, Transbond Moisture Insensitive Primer, and Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) used with a light-cured composite resin (Transbond XT). Bovine permanent mandibular incisors (315) were randomly divided into 21 groups (15 in each group). Each primer-adhesive combination was tested under 7 different enamel surface conditions: (1) dry, (2) water application before priming, (3) water application after priming, (4) water application before and after priming, (5) saliva application before priming, (6) saliva application after priming, and (7) saliva application before and after priming. Stainless steel brackets were bonded in each test group with composite resin. After bonding, all samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and then tested for shear bond strength. Noncontaminated enamel surfaces had the highest bond strengths for conventional, hydrophilic, and self-etching primers, which produced the same strength values. In most contaminated conditions, the self-etching primer had higher strength values than either the hydrophilic or conventional primers. The self-etching primer was the least influenced by water and saliva contamination, except when moistening occurred after the recommended 3-second air burst. No significant differences in debond locations were found among the groups bonded with the self-etching primer under the various enamel conditions.     

Effect of impression technique on bond strength.

If the effects of surface preparation (eg, acid etching, laser preparation, crystal growth) are to be investigated on the same tooth from which the bond strength is recorded, a method of surface replication is required that does not affect the subsequent bond. This study investigated the effect of 2 different methods of taking impressions on bond strength. Three groups of 11 mandibular incisors were used. The labial enamel was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds. Group A (control) had no impression taken; in group B (silicone), impressions were taken with silicone impression material before bonding; in group C (polyether), an impression was taken with polyether before bonding. After the impressions were taken, GAC brackets (A Company, San Diego, Calif) were bonded to the labial surfaces of the etched enamel with Transbond XT light-cured composite (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Teeth with bonded brackets were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, and then bond strength was measured on a testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was also recorded. The lowest bond strength was found after silicone replication (mean [standard deviation]: 8.6 [1.7] MPa) and the highest in the control group (21.2 [4.0] MPa). There was no significant difference between the control group and the polyether replication group (19.1 [4.7] MPa). The surface detail replications of polyether and silicone were found to be identical. It was concluded that polyether had no significant effect on bond strength and was suitable for surface replication before bonding. Polyether allows replication of the enamel surface without a significant effect on bond strength, and this technique could be used to examine the relationship between enamel preparation techniques and subsequent bond strength between composite and enamel.     

Effect of loading mode on bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with 2 systems.

INTRODUCTION: A new orthodontic bracket bonding method or material invariably spawns bond strength studies examining the efficacy of the innovation. The primary purpose of this project was to ascertain whether the mode of in-vitro bracket debonding used in a study affects the measured bond strength. The secondary aim was to compare the bond strengths of 2 different bonding systems. METHODS: Flattened stainless steel orthodontic brackets were bonded to flattened bovine enamel with a resin composite bonding agent (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The enamel was prepared with traditional acid etching and priming (37% phosphoric acid gel and Transbond XT Primer, 3M Unitek) or a single-step method (Transbond Plus, 3M Unitek) that combined etching and priming. Cement thickness was kept constant, and bonding was done under controlled temperature and humidity. Brackets were debonded in shear-peel, tension, or torsion. RESULTS: When tested in shear-peel mode, traditional etching and priming produced a stronger bond than the single-step self-etch system. When tested in tension, the traditional bond was weaker than the single-step bond, and when tested in torsion, the bond strengths were similar. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength can vary depending on the method of testing. Claims of clinical efficacy might not be valid.     

Shear bond strength of calcium phosphate ceramic brackets to human enamel

The aim of this study was to examine the shear bond strength between Hyaline brackets, a new type of calcium phosphate ceramic bracket, and human enamel using various types of adhesive resin and to investigate the effectiveness of a silane-coupling agent to bond Hyaline to human enamel. Kurasper F, Light Bond, Super Bond C&B, and Transbond XT were used as adhesive resins, and Porcelain Liner M was used as the silane-coupling agent. The Hyaline bracket was bonded to human enamel using one of the above adhesive resins according to the manufacturer's instructions. After applying the Porcelain Liner M to Hyaline, the Hyaline bracket was also bonded to enamel using one of the above adhesive resins according to the manufacturer's instructions. The shear bond strengths were measured after immersion in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. Three types of adhesive resin, Kurasper F, Light Bond, and Super Bond C&B, produced clinically acceptable shear bond strength with and without Porcelain Liner M. Transbond XT produced significantly lower bond strength to enamel with or without Porcelain Liner M (P < .05). The application of Porcelain Liner M was not useful for improving the bond strength of Hyaline to enamel. The adhesive remnant indices were not significantly different among four adhesive resins. In conclusion, adhesive resins such as Kurasper F, Light bond, and Super Bond C&B are useful for bonding esthetic Hyaline brackets to human enamel.     

Effects of blood contamination on the shear bond strengths of conventional and hydrophilic primers.

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of blood contamination on the shear bond strength and failure site of 2 orthodontic primers (Transbond XT and Transbond MIP; 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) when used with adhesive-precoated brackets (APC II brackets; 3M/Unitek). One hundred twenty bovine permanent mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 8 groups; each group contained 15 specimens. Each primer-adhesive combination was tested under a different enamel surface condition: dry, blood contamination before priming, blood contamination after priming, or blood contamination before and after priming. Stainless steel APC II brackets were bonded to the teeth. After bonding, all samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested for shear bond strength. Noncontaminated enamel surfaces had the highest bond strengths for both conventional and hydrophilic primers; their values were almost the same. Under blood-contaminated conditions, both primers showed significantly lower shear bond strengths. For each type of primer, no significant differences were reported among the blood-contaminated groups. Significant differences in debond locations were found among the groups bonded with the 2 primers under the various enamel surface conditions. Blood contamination of enamel during the bonding procedure of conventional and hydrophilic primers significantly lowers their bond strength values and might produce a bond strength that is not clinically adequate.     

Direct bonding with precoated brackets and self-etching primers

PURPOSE: To evaluate the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant on the tooth after the debonding of APC Plus precoated brackets, when conditioning the enamel with phosphoric acid and Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP), in comparison with uncoated brackets bonded with Transbond XT. METHODS: The brackets were bonded to extracted premolars, which were divided into three groups: (1) Acid/Transbond XT, (2) Acid/ APC Plus and (3) TSEP/APC Plus. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal test machine. The crosshead speed was 1 mm/minute. The adhesive remnant on the tooth was quantified using an image analysis equipment. RESULTS: No significant differences were found in the bond strengths of the three groups evaluated (P> 0.05). The two groups in which APC Plus system was used left significantly less adhesive on the tooth than Transbond XT. TSEP/APC Plus left significantly less adhesive than Acid/APC Plus (P< 0.017).     

Evaluation of shear bond strength with different enamel pre-treatments

The purpose of this study was to investigate the shear bond strengths of two adhesives, Panavia-21 and a composite resin (Transbond XT), with different enamel pre-treatments, acid etching (37 per cent phosphoric acid) and grit blasting (50 microm aluminium oxide particles). The mode of bond failure was also assessed using the modified adhesive remnant index (ARI). Ninety freshly extracted non-carious human premolar teeth were randomly divided into the following groups: (1) Transbond XT, acid-etched enamel surface; (2) Panavia-21, acid-etched enamel surface; (3) Transbond XT, grit-blasted enamel surface; (4) Panavia-21, grit-blasted enamel surface; (5) Transbond XT, acid-etched enamel surface with grit-blasted brackets; (6) Panavia-21, acid-etched enamel surface with grit-blasted brackets. All groups had stainless steel brackets bonded to the buccal surface of each tooth. An Instron universal testing machine was used to determine the shear bond strengths at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/second. Statistical analysis was undertaken using analysis of variance and the Tukey test. The mean bond strength values were as follows: group 1, 135.7 +/- 23.0 N; group 2, 181.5 +/- 18.4 N; group 3, 38.4 +/- 27.5 N; group 4, 59.1 +/- 24.1 N; group 5, 106.7 +/- 21.5 N; group 6, 165.3 +/- 21.4 N. Panavia-21 with the acid-etched enamel surface had a significantly higher shear bond strength than the other groups (P < 0.001). This was followed by the composite group with the acid-etched enamel surface. This group differed significantly from the composite and Panavia-21 groups with the grit-blasted tooth surface (P < 0.001) and from the composite and Panavia-21 groups with the acid-etched enamel surface and grit-blasted brackets (P < 0.01). The current findings indicate that Panavia-21 is an excellent adhesive and produces a bond strength that is clinically useful. Enamel surface preparation using grit blasting alone results in a significantly lower bond strength and should not be advocated for clinical use.     

Effect of surface treatments on the bond strength of brackets bonded with a compomer

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the compomer Dyract AP for bonding brackets when conditioning the enamel with phosphoric acid and a non-rinsing conditioner (NRC), in comparison with a control group in which the resin orthodontic adhesive system Transbond XT was used. METHODS: The brackets were bonded to extracted premolars which were divided into three groups: (1) Acid/Transbond XT, (2) NRC/Dyract AP and (3) Acid/Dyract AP. Shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The crosshead speed was 1mm/minute. The adhesive remnant on the tooth after debonding was determined using image analysis equipment. RESULTS: The bond strength of Acid/Transbond XT was significantly higher than bond strengths of Acid/Dyract AP and NRC/Dyract AP (P< 0.017). No significant differences were observed between Acid/Dyract AP and NRC/Dyract APBond strength values (P> 0.017). Acid/Transbond XT left significantly more adhesive on the tooth than Acid/Dyract AP and NRC/Dyract AP, whereas NRC/Dyract AP left significantly less adhesive than Acid/Dyract AP (P< 0.05).     

Comparison of shear bond strength of plastic and ceramic brackets

Objectives

The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the shear bond strength of various esthetic brackets used in conjunction with two different adhesive systems.

Methods

Five non-silanized ceramic brackets (Aspire Gold/Forestadent, Clarity?/3M Unitek, CLEAR/Adenta, Contour Twin/ODS, QuicKlear/Forestadent) and four plastic brackets (Aesthetik-Line®/Forestadent, Brillant®/Forestadent, Composite Clear®/ODS, Elegance®/Dentaurum) were bonded either with Transbond? XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) or with ConTec SE (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) to bovine permanent mandibular incisors. Twelve specimens were tested in each group, thus, bonding 60 ceramic and 48 plastic brackets with either adhesive to a total of 216 teeth. Shear bond strength was measured in accordance with the DIN 13990-2 standard governing test methods for the entire attachment–adhesive–enamel system. The fracture surfaces resulting from shear-induced debonding were analyzed via light microscopy.

Results

The combinations Clarity? + Transbond? XT, CLEAR® + Transbond? XT, and Contour Twin + Transbond? XT exhibited shear bond strengths of over 10 MPa. The Adhesive Remnant Index scores of the various bracket types varied widely according to the different bracket–base designs. No enamel fractures were observed.

Conclusion

Some bracket–adhesive combinations in this study attained shear bond strengths approaching those of metal brackets. The risk of debonding-related enamel defects is comparable with different esthetic bracket combinations. Manufacturers’ recommendations for the adhesive systems to be used with their brackets should be strictly adhered to.