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.     

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.     

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     

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.     

Effects of a fluoride-containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate complex on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of enamel pre-treatment with a new fluoride-containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) complex on the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded with etch-and-rinse or self-etching adhesive systems. The material comprised 66 extracted human premolars randomly divided into six equal groups with respect to the enamel pre-treatment and adhesive system employed: 1. No pre-treatment and brackets bonded with the etch-and-rinse adhesive system (Transbond XT). 2. Pre-treatment with fluoride-containing CPP-ACP paste (MI Paste Plus) and Transbond XT. 3. Pre-treatment with non-fluoride CPP-ACP paste (MI Paste) and Transbond XT.4. No pre-treatment and brackets bonded with the self-etching adhesive system (Transbond Plus). 5 and 6. Enamel pre-treated as for groups 2 and 3, respectively, and the Transbond Plus. Bonded specimens were subjected to thermal cycling (×1000) before SBS testing. The residual adhesive on the enamel surface was evaluated after debonding with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Data evaluation was made using one-way analysis of variance and Tukey test for SBS results, and Kruskal-Wallis test for ARI results. The results showed that enamel pre-treatment with either fluoride or non-fluoride CPP-ACP paste had no significant effect on the SBS of the self-etching adhesive system (P > 0.05). Enamel pre-treatment with non-fluoride CPP-ACP in group 3 significantly reduced the SBS of the etch-and-rinse adhesive (P < 0.001), while pre-treatment with fluoride-containing CPP-ACP paste (groups 2 and 5) did not affect debonding values (P > 0.05). The fluoride-containing CPP-ACP did not compromise the SBS of brackets bonded with the tested etch-and-rinse and self-etching systems, but its non-fluoride version significantly decreased the SBS of the etch-and-rinse adhesive system.     

Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites

This study evaluated the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to human premolars using five different combinations of flowable composites and one-step self-etching adhesives (n=12): (1) Adper Easy Bond+Filtek Supreme XT Flow; (2) Futurabond NR+Grandio Flow; (3) Clearfil S3 Bond+Clearfil Majesty Flow; (4) AdheSE One+Tetric EvoFlow; and (5) Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer+Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive. After shear bond strength testing, adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were given according to the amount of adhesive and resin remaining on the brackets. On shear bond strength, there were no statistically significant differences between Groups 2 and 4 and between Groups 3 and 5 (p>0.05). On ARI scores, the predominant ARI scores in Groups 1, 2, 3, and 5 were 4, 2, 5, and 4 respectively; in Group 4, they were 0 and 4. Results showed that some combinations of flowable composites and self-etching adhesives might not be suitable for orthodontic use due to their low shear bond strengths and high ARI scores -with the latter signaling the risk of damaging the enamel surface during debonding.     

The use of Ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets

As new adhesives, composite resins, and bonding techniques were introduced, orthodontists adopted some of these innovations and added them to their armamentarium. The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive materials; one with an organically modified ceramic matrix, Admira (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and another that contains the traditional Bis GMA matrix namely Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The new materials have a lower wear rate and are more biocompatible than traditional composites. Forty molar teeth were randomly divided into two groups: 20 teeth bonded with the Transbond adhesive system and the other 20 teeth with the Admira bonding system. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS of the two adhesives. Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05. The results of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.489) of the SBS indicated that there was no significant (P = .628) difference between the two adhesives tested. The mean SBS for Admira was 5.1 +/- 3.3 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. It was concluded that the new material, Ormocer, which is an organically modified ceramic restorative material can potentially have orthodontic applications if available in a more flowable paste. These new materials are more biocompatible and have lower wear rate including bonding orthodontic brackets to teeth.     

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.     

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.     

Bond strength of disinfected metal and ceramic brackets: an in vitro study

The aim of this in vitro investigation was to test whether disinfecting with Chlorhexamed fluid had an influence on the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets. Metal and ceramic brackets were fixed by the composite adhesives Transbond XT (light curing) and Concise (chemical curing) to 224 bovine permanent mandibular incisors. Bovine teeth were divided into eight groups of 28 each as group 1: metal bracket/Transbond XT, group 2: disinfected metal bracket/Transbond XT, group 3: metal bracket/Concise, group 4: disinfected metal bracket/Concise, group 5: ceramic bracket/Transbond XT, group 6: disinfected ceramic bracket/Transbond XT, group 7: ceramic bracket/Concise, and group 8: disinfected ceramic bracket/Concise. Adhesive bonding was done according to the manufacturers' instructions. As shown by group comparison (Kruskal-Wallis test, univariate analysis of variance, P < .001), the disinfection of metal brackets had no statistically relevant influence on shear bond strength (P = .454). However, disinfecting ceramic brackets with either adhesive led to a significant reduction in shear bond strength compared with the untreated ceramic bracket group (P < .001). The Fisher's exact test of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores showed a significant difference within the metal group bonded with different adhesives (P = .0003). The ARI scores 1 and 2 were not reached by the ceramic bracket groups. The disinfection of the ceramic brackets is a suitable procedure for clinical use because the measured shear bond strength values were higher than 6-8 MPa required in orthodontics.     

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.     

Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Background

This paper aimed to study the effect of two enamel protective agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional and self-etching primer (SEP) adhesive systems.

Methods

The two protective agents used were resin infiltrate (ICON) and Clinpro; the two adhesive systems used were self-etching primer system (Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT adhesive) and a conventional adhesive system (37% phosphoric acid etch + Transbond XT primer + Transbond XT adhesive ). Sixty premolars divided into three major groups and six subgroups were included. The shear bond strength was tested 72 h after bracket bonding. Adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) were assessed. Statistical analysis consisted of a one-way ANOVA for the SBS and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney test for the ARI scores.

Results

In the control group, the mean SBS when using the conventional adhesive was 21.1 ± 7.5 MPa while when using SEP was 20.2 ± 4.0 MPa. When ICON was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 20.2 ± 5.6 MPa while with SEP was 17.6 ± 4.1 MPa. When Clinpro was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 24.3 ± 7.6 MPa while with SEP was 11.2 ± 3.5 MPa. Significant differences in the shear bond strength of the different groups (P = .000) was found as well as in the ARI scores distribution (P = .000).

Conclusion

The type of the adhesive system used to bond the orthodontic brackets, either conventional or self-etching primer, influenced the SBS, while the enamel protective material influenced the adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after debonding.     

Effect of light-emitting diode on bond strength of orthodontic brackets

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of light-emitting diode (LED) light curing on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to teeth. Light exposure of 40 seconds from a conventional halogen-based light-curing unit was used as a control. Eighty human premolars were divided into four groups of 20 each. Brackets were bonded to acid-etched teeth with Transbond XT light-cured adhesive. In the first group, the adhesive was light cured for 40 seconds with a conventional halogen unit (XL3000, 3M). In the other three groups, adhesive was cured with a commercial LED unit (Elipar FreeLight, 3M ESPE) for 10, 20, or 40 seconds. SBS of brackets was measured on a universal testing machine and recorded in megapascals. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after failure of brackets. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and chi-square tests. No statistically significant differences were found among the SBS values of halogen-based light-cured (13.1 +/- 3.1 MPa) and 20- and 40-second LED-cured (13.9 +/- 4.8 MPa and 12.7 +/- 5.1 MPa) specimens (P > .05). However, 10 seconds of LED curing yielded significantly lower SBS (P < .05). No statistically significant differences were found between the ARI scores among groups. The results of this study are promising for the orthodontic application of LED-curing units, but further compatibility and physical characteristic studies of various orthodontic adhesives and clinical trials should be performed before validation.     

A comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin cement and two orthodontic resin adhesive systems

The object of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and the quantity of adhesive remaining on the tooth after the debonding of brackets bonded with two light-cured orthodontic resin adhesive systems (Transbond XT and Light-Bond) and a dual-cured resin cement (RelyX Unicem). Seventy-five premolars were divided into three groups. In each group, brackets were bonded with one of the adhesives according to the manufacturer's instructions. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal test machine at a crosshead speed of one mm/min, and adhesive remnant was quantified using image analysis equipment. Our results showed that the resin cement produced significantly lower bond strength than the two orthodontic resin adhesive systems. It was also observed that the bond strength produced by Light-Bond was significantly greater than that of Transbond XT. RelyX left significantly less remnant adhesive than Transbond XT and Light-Bond. Between the two orthodontic systems, Light-Bond left significantly less adhesive on the tooth than Transbond XT.     

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.     

Influence of Modifying the Resin Coat Application Protocol on Bond Strength and Microleakage of Metal Orthodontic Brackets

Objective:To determine the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of metal brackets bonded with two different adhesives when a resin coat and the adhesive were light-cured separately or simultaneously.Materials and Methods:Eighty stainless steel brackets were bonded to the enamel of extracted premolars, 40 with Transbond Plus adhesive (group 1) and 40 with Transbond XT (group 2). Each group was subdivided into four equal subgroups; a, b, c, and d. Brackets in subgroups a and b were bonded with the adhesive without coating. For brackets in subgroup c, Ortho-Choice Ortho-Coat was applied and cured after curing of the adhesive, while the coat was applied and cured with the adhesive for brackets in subgroup d. The specimens were immersed in a 2% methylene blue dye. After debonding, the teeth and brackets were examined with a stereomicroscope. The data were subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Duncan multiple range test, and Pearson correlation.Results:Both adhesives had comparable SBS. Curing of the coat after curing of the adhesive showed significantly higher SBS than other protocols. There was no significant difference in SBS of the adhesives without coating and with curing of the coat and adhesive simultaneously. Application of the coat significantly reduced microleakage. There was a significant negative relationship between SBS and microleakage.Conclusions:SBS was significantly improved with curing of the coat and adhesive separately, while it was not adversely affected when the coat and adhesive were cured simultaneously. Using the coat with either protocol significantly reduced the microleakage.     

Shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with Self-Etching Primer

The aim of this study was to determine the shear bond strength of different composites and to determine the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of metallic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP). Forty human premolars were divided into four equal groups. In group 1 (control), the Transbond XT was conventionally used. In groups 2-4, the TPSEP was used before bonding with Transbond XT, Z-100, and Concise Orthodontic, respectively. After the bonding, the samples were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The brackets were debonded using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/ min. The shear bond strength (MPa) for group 1 (control), group 2 (TPSEP + Transbond XT), group 3 (TPSEP + Z-100), and group 4 (TPSEP + Concise Orthodontic) were of 6.43, 4.61, 4.74, and 0.02, respectively. Group 1 was statistically superior to other groups (P < .05), but there was no statistically significant difference between groups 2 and 3 (P > .05), although both were statistically superior to group 4 (P < .05). According to the ARI evaluation, most of the failures involved the bracket/composite interface (groups 1 and 2) as well as the enamel/composite interface (groups 3 and 4). The Transbond XT conventionally bonded showed better adhesion results than Transbond XT, Z-100, and Concise Orthodontic after using Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer.     

Bond strength and interfacial morphology of orthodontic brackets bonded to eroded enamel treated with calcium silicate–sodium phosphate salts or resin infiltration

Objective:To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to eroded enamel treated with preventive approaches and to examine the enamel/bracket interfaces.Materials and Methods:Ninety-one brackets were bonded to seven groups of enamel samples: sound; eroded; eroded+treated with calcium silicate–sodium phosphate salts (CSP); eroded+infiltrated by ICON^®; eroded+infiltrated by ICON^® and brackets bonded with 1-month delay; eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin; and eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin and brackets bonded with 1-month delay. For each group, 12 samples were tested in SBS and bond failure was assessed with the adhesive remnant index (ARI); one sample was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).Results:Samples treated with CSP or infiltration showed no significant differences in SBS values with sound samples. Infiltrated samples followed by a delayed bonding showed lower SBS values. All of the values remained acceptable. The ARI scores were significantly higher for sound enamel, eroded, and treated with CSP groups than for all infiltrated samples. SEM examinations corroborated the findings.Conclusions:Using CSP or resin infiltration before orthodontic bonding does not jeopardize the bonding quality. The orthodontic bonding should be performed shortly after the resin infiltration.     

Bond strengths and adhesive remnant index of self-etching adhesives used to bond brackets to instrumented and uninstrumented enamel

PURPOSE: This study evaluated bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to instrumented and uninstrumented enamel using self-etching adhesive systems when compared to a total-etch adhesive system. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was also determined after debonding. METHODS: 140 bovine incisors were included in acrylic resin, and divided randomly in two groups: instrumented vs. uninstrumented enamel. For the instrumented enamel, specimens had their facial enamel ground flat to 600-grit. In each group, specimens were subdivided into four experimental subgroups according to the adhesive technique used: Transbond Plus, Adper Prompt L-Pop, iBond, and Adper Single Bond, applied following manufacturers' instructions. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to the treated instrumented or uninstrumented enamel with Transbond XT light-cured resin-based composite cement, and the bond strength was tested in shear mode after 7 days. One group where no etch and no adhesive were used served as a control. ARI scores were determined after debonding. RESULTS: There was no statistically significant difference in mean bond strengths between instrumented and uninstrumented enamel for any of the adhesive systems (P > or = 0.05). No significant differences were observed for bond strengths among the adhesives tested (P = 0.308), and all experimental groups resulted in mean bond strengths significantly higher than the controls (P < 0.05). Statistically significant differences were identified when ARI scores were compared, with less adhesive remnants being observed for iBond (uninstrumented enamel) and the control groups (P < 0.05).     

Shear bond strength of orthodontic resins after caries infiltrant preconditioning

Objective:To investigate the influence of caries infiltrant preconditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic resin cements on sound and demineralized enamel.Materials and Methods:Stainless-steel brackets were bonded to sound or artificially demineralized (14 d, acidic buffer, pH 5.0) bovine enamel specimens using a resin cement or a combination of caries infiltrant preconditioning (Icon, DMG) and the respective resin cement (light-curing composite: Heliosit Orthodontic, Transbond XT, using either Transbond XT Primer or Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer; light-curing resin-modified glass ionomer cement: Fuji Ortho; or self-curing composite: Concise Orthodontic Bonding System). Each group consisted of 15 specimens. Shear bond strength was evaluated after thermo-cycling (10,000×, 5°C to 55°C) at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min, and data were statistically analyzed by analysis of variance, Mann-Whitney test, and Weibull statistics. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and enamel fractures were determined at 25× magnification and were statistically analyzed by regression analyses (P < .05).Results:The caries infiltrant system significantly increased the shear bond strength of Transbond XT Primer, Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer, and Fuji Ortho in sound specimens, and of all resin cements except for the Concise Orthodontic Bonding System in demineralized enamel. Overall, caries infiltrant preconditioning decreased significantly the number of enamel fractures, but it did not affect ARI scores.Conclusion:Preconditioning of sound and demineralized enamel with the caries infiltrant system did not impair but rather increased the shear bond strength of most orthodontic resin cements while decreasing the risk of enamel fracture at debonding.