Abstract
References
- 1. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 2005;32:146-63.
- 2. Vaheed NA, Gupta M, David SA, Sam G, Ramanna PK, Bhagvandas SC. In vitro Analysis of Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of Stainless Steel Brackets with Different Adhesive Systems to Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19:1047-1051,
- 3. Lavernhe P, Estivalèzes E, Lachaud F, Lodter C, Piquet R. Orthodontic bonding: Finite element for standardized evaluations. Int J Adhes Adhes 2010;30:21-29.
- 4. Buonocore MG, Matsui A, Gwinnett AJ. Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol 1968;13:61-70.
- 5. Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mousavi N, Ghasemi A. Aus Orthod J. 2011;27:28-32.
- 6. Lai PY, Woods MG, Tyas MJ. Bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to restorative resin composite surfaces. Aust Orthod J. 1999;15:235-245.
- 7. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(6):621-624.
- 8. Sachdeva A, Raghav S, Goel M, Raghav N, Tiwari S. A comparison of the shear bond strength of conventional acid etching, self‑etching primer, and single bottle self‑adhesive-an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9(3):170-175.
- 9. Mizrahi E, Smith DC. The use of cyanoacrylate adhesives for bonding orthodontic attachments. J Dent Res 1967;46:1425-1432.
- 10. Karim Soltani M, Barkhori S, Alizadeh Y, Golfeshan F. Comparison of debonding characteristics of the conventional metal and self-ligating brackets to enamel: an in vitro study. Iran J Orthod 2014;9(3):e4842.
- 11. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobsen A, Lacefield W. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71(2):141-148.
- 12. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH. Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(3):274-276.
- 13. Hellak A, Rusdea P, Schauseil M, Stein S, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Enamel shear bond strength of two orthodontic self-etching bonding system compared to TransbondTM XT. J Orofac Orthop 2016;77(6):391-399.
- 14. Condo R, Mampieri G, Cioffi A, Cataldi ME, Frustaci I, Giancotti A et. al. Physical and chemical mechanism involved in addhesion of orthodontic bonding composites: in vitro evaluations. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:350.
- 15. Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Saadatmand A. Effects of blood and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets and evaluating certain methods for reversing the effect of contamination. Orthod Waves. 2010;69:156-63.
- 16. Khosravanifard B, Nemati-Anaraki S, Nili S, Rakhshan V. Assessing the effects of three resin removal methods and bracket sandblasting on shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets and enamel surface. Orthod Waves. 2011 Mar;70(1):27-38.
- 17. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984 Apr;85(4):333-340.
- 18. Uysal T, Yagci A, Uysal B, Akdogan G. Are nano-composites and nanoionomers suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):78-82.
- 19. Fleischmann LA, Sobral MC, Santos Júnior GC, Habib F. Comparative study of six types of orthodontic brackets for adhesion strength. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(4):107-116.
- 20. Lin CL, Huang SF, Tsai HC, Chang WJ. Finite element submodeling analyses of damage to enamel at the incisor enamel/ adhesive interface upon de-bonding for different orthodontic bracket bases. J Biomech 2011;44(1):134-142.
- 21. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, Lee YK, Kim CW. Effects of salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(4):287-295.
- 22. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, Laffoon JF. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):616-620.
Comparison Of Shear Bond Strength And Adhesive Remnant Index Between Different Adhesive Systems In Bonding and Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index of stainless-steel brackets bonded with different orthodontic adhesive systems.
Materials and Methods: In our study performed on 60 premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons, MBT prescription 0.022'' stainless-steel brackets (Discovery Smart®, Dentaurum, Germany) were used. In teeth randomly divided into 3 groups, bonding was performed with Group 1: Trulock Light Activated Bonding System (RMO, USA), Group 2: Bisco Ortho Bracket Paste LC (Bisco, USA), Group 3: Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive (3M, USA). SBS and residual adhesive indexes (ARI) were evaluated by breaking the samples. Adhesive residues were cleaned with tungsten carbide burs from the surfaces of the teeth, rebonding was made after sanding the brackets’ surfaces. SBS and ARI values were re-evaluated. One-way ANOVA, two-sample t-test and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for statistical analysis of the data, p <0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results:
Statistically significant differences were observed between Group 1 and Group 2 in comparison to the first SBS values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems to enamel (p <0.05). Among the adhesive systems, only a statistically significant difference was found between the first bonding values and the rebonding values of Group 2 (p <0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the first and rebond strengths of the other two adhesive systems. Rebonding values of three different orthodontic adhesive systems were very close to each other.
Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that the adhesive systems developed for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to the enamel can show clinically enough bond strength even if the rebonding strengths of the falling stainless-steel brackets to the same enamel surfaces decrease slightly.
References
- 1. Russell JS. Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod 2005;32:146-63.
- 2. Vaheed NA, Gupta M, David SA, Sam G, Ramanna PK, Bhagvandas SC. In vitro Analysis of Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of Stainless Steel Brackets with Different Adhesive Systems to Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018;19:1047-1051,
- 3. Lavernhe P, Estivalèzes E, Lachaud F, Lodter C, Piquet R. Orthodontic bonding: Finite element for standardized evaluations. Int J Adhes Adhes 2010;30:21-29.
- 4. Buonocore MG, Matsui A, Gwinnett AJ. Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol 1968;13:61-70.
- 5. Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Mousavi N, Ghasemi A. Aus Orthod J. 2011;27:28-32.
- 6. Lai PY, Woods MG, Tyas MJ. Bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to restorative resin composite surfaces. Aust Orthod J. 1999;15:235-245.
- 7. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(6):621-624.
- 8. Sachdeva A, Raghav S, Goel M, Raghav N, Tiwari S. A comparison of the shear bond strength of conventional acid etching, self‑etching primer, and single bottle self‑adhesive-an in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9(3):170-175.
- 9. Mizrahi E, Smith DC. The use of cyanoacrylate adhesives for bonding orthodontic attachments. J Dent Res 1967;46:1425-1432.
- 10. Karim Soltani M, Barkhori S, Alizadeh Y, Golfeshan F. Comparison of debonding characteristics of the conventional metal and self-ligating brackets to enamel: an in vitro study. Iran J Orthod 2014;9(3):e4842.
- 11. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobsen A, Lacefield W. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71(2):141-148.
- 12. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH. Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(3):274-276.
- 13. Hellak A, Rusdea P, Schauseil M, Stein S, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Enamel shear bond strength of two orthodontic self-etching bonding system compared to TransbondTM XT. J Orofac Orthop 2016;77(6):391-399.
- 14. Condo R, Mampieri G, Cioffi A, Cataldi ME, Frustaci I, Giancotti A et. al. Physical and chemical mechanism involved in addhesion of orthodontic bonding composites: in vitro evaluations. BMC Oral Health 2021;21:350.
- 15. Khosravanifard B, Rakhshan V, Saadatmand A. Effects of blood and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of metal orthodontic brackets and evaluating certain methods for reversing the effect of contamination. Orthod Waves. 2010;69:156-63.
- 16. Khosravanifard B, Nemati-Anaraki S, Nili S, Rakhshan V. Assessing the effects of three resin removal methods and bracket sandblasting on shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets and enamel surface. Orthod Waves. 2011 Mar;70(1):27-38.
- 17. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984 Apr;85(4):333-340.
- 18. Uysal T, Yagci A, Uysal B, Akdogan G. Are nano-composites and nanoionomers suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(1):78-82.
- 19. Fleischmann LA, Sobral MC, Santos Júnior GC, Habib F. Comparative study of six types of orthodontic brackets for adhesion strength. Rev Dent Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(4):107-116.
- 20. Lin CL, Huang SF, Tsai HC, Chang WJ. Finite element submodeling analyses of damage to enamel at the incisor enamel/ adhesive interface upon de-bonding for different orthodontic bracket bases. J Biomech 2011;44(1):134-142.
- 21. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, Lee YK, Kim CW. Effects of salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(4):287-295.
- 22. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, Laffoon JF. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):616-620.
Details
| Primary Language | English |
|---|---|
| Subjects | Health Care Administration |
| Journal Section | Original Research Articles |
| Authors | |
| Publication Date | October 1, 2022 |
| Submission Date | August 23, 2021 |
| Published in Issue | Year 2022Volume: 25 Issue: 3 |
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal (Cumhuriyet Dent J, CDJ) is the official publication of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry. CDJ is an international journal dedicated to the latest advancement of dentistry. The aim of this journal is to provide a platform for scientists and academicians all over the world to promote, share, and discuss various new issues and developments in different areas of dentistry. First issue of the Journal of Cumhuriyet University Faculty of Dentistry was published in 1998. In 2010, journal's name was changed as Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. Journal’s publication language is English.
CDJ accepts articles in English. Submitting a paper to CDJ is free of charges. In addition, CDJ has not have article processing charges.
Frequency: Four times a year (March, June, September, and December)
IMPORTANT NOTICE
All users of Cumhuriyet Dental Journal should visit to their user's home page through the "https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/user" " or "https://dergipark.org.tr/en/user" links to update their incomplete information shown in blue or yellow warnings and update their e-mail addresses and information to the DergiPark system. Otherwise, the e-mails from the journal will not be seen or fall into the SPAM folder. Please fill in all missing part in the relevant field.
Please visit journal's AUTHOR GUIDELINE to see revised policy and submission rules to be held since 2020.