Effects of two adhesion boosters on the shear bond strength of new and rebonded orthodontic brackets (original) (raw)
Related papers
Early versus delayed rebonding of orthodontic brackets
Progress in Orthodontics, 2012
Enamel Orthodontic Treatment Rebonding Repeated Bonding Shear Bond Strength a b s t r a c t Objectives: There are controversial reports regarding the effect of repeated bonding on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic attachments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the SBS of brackets following early and delayed rebonding, and after employing different methods of composite removal.
PubMed, 2023
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the bond strength of light- and chemical-cure adhesive systems over six months. Materials and methods: A total of 144 sound human maxillary first and second premolars were randomly divided into six groups according to the adhesive type (i.e., Transbond XT and Unite) and evaluation time. The groups were T0 (24-h group without thermocycling), T1 (24-h group with thermocycling), T2 (1-month group), T3 (2-month group), T4 (4-month group), and T5 (6-month group). The bond strength was then measured and the data were analyzed by SPSS software (version 23) through the independent t-test and one-way ANOVA. A P value less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The results of this study showed that shear bond strength of chemical-cure orthodontic adhesive (Unite, 15.37 MPa) at all-time points was significantly 1.37 times higher than that of the Transbond XT light-cure adhesive (11.15 MPa). Moreover, shear bond strength of self-cure adhesive (Unite) 1 month after debonding showed a significant difference with the 24-h group without thermocycling (P = 0.002), 24-h group with thermocycling (P = 0.008), and 6-month group (P = 0.016). The highest shear bond strength in both adhesives was observed at one month. Furthermore, the shear bond strength of Transbond XT light-cure adhesive one month after debonding showed a significant difference with the 24-h group without thermocycling (P = 0.000) and 24-h group with thermocycling (P = 0.000), as well as with the 2-month (P = 0.008), 4-month (P = 0.000), and 6-month groups (P = 0.016). Conclusion: Unite self-cure adhesive compared to Transbond XT light-cure adhesive has higher bond strength and is recommended for rebonding brackets in patients with multiple rebonds.
Rebonding of unused brackets with different orthodontic adhesives
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 2012
Rebonding of unused brackets with different orthodontic adhesives original article Objective: To compare in vitro shear bond strength (SBS) of different orthodontic adhesives in bonding and repeatedly rebonding metal brackets, and to evaluate the bond failure site with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Methods: Specimens consisted of 90 extracted human first premolars, randomly divided into three groups (n=30). The adhesives Alpha Plast (AP), Concise™ (CO) and Transbond™ XT (TB) were used in each group. Three SBS tests were performed, i.e., one at T 0 (initial) and the other two at T 1 and T 2 (first and second rebondings, respectively), observing a 24-hour interval. The tests were performed in a Shimadzu AG-I (10kN) SBS testing machine, at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. Results: SBS data were subjected to ANOVA, Tukey's test and Bonferroni test (p<0.05). For the ARI, the Kruskal Wallis test was performed, followed by the Dunn test. The results revealed that at T 0 groups AP and CO showed SBS values that were near, but above TB values; and at T 1 and T 2 , the highest SBS values were observed for the AP group, followed by the CO and TB groups. Conclusion: Statistically significant differences were found in SBS between groups AP, CO and TB during bonding and repeated rebondings of unused metal brackets, with group AP achieving the highest SBS value. Regarding ARI, adhesive AP exhibited bond failure at the enamel-adhesive interface, with a higher enamel fracture frequency.
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal, 2022
The purpose of this in vitro 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 because of orthodontic reasons, MBT prescription 0.022'' stainless-steel brackets (Discovery Smart®, Dentaurum, Germany) were used. 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 test 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 in vitro study suggest that the adhesive systems developed for using in orthodontics can show clinically enough bond strength even if the rebonding strengths of the falling stainless-steel brackets to the same enamel surfaces decrease slightly.
Evaluation of the debonding strength of orthodontic brackets using three different bonding systems
The European Journal of Orthodontics, 2007
The aim of this work was to investigate the stability of the bracket-adhesive-enamel interface, as a function of adhesive material and of debonding procedure, in order to assess which debonding technique is the least detrimental to the enamel. Ninety lower adult bovine incisors were selected and metallic orthodontic brackets were bonded using three adhesive systems: Concise, Transbond, and Fuji Ortho. Three different debonding procedures were used based on tensile, shear, and torsional stresses. One-way analysis of variance statistical analysis was employed to compare mechanical properties, while the adhesive remnant index was used to evaluate fracture properties. Each adhesive material used showed a statistical difference in tensile failure. The difference between shear and torsion failure loads was statistically signifi cant only for the Fuji GC sample (P < 0.01). The shear test was the most damaging to the enamel surface. Transbond luting resulted in greater adhesion than the Concise or Fuji Ortho systems. Fuji Ortho was more prone to accidental debonding, while Transbond tended to cause enamel lesions, since high loads were required to debond the bracket. Of the three modes examined, torsional debonding stress resulted in the least enamel damage.
Egyptian orthodontic journal, 2020
Objective: To test shear bond strength and mode of debonding of brackets bonded using a traditional orthodontic adhesive (Transbond XT), self-adhesive material (Heliosit) and selfetch &self-adhesive resin material (Vertise flow) with and without phosphoric acid etching; after 15 minutes, 24 hours and following aging and thermocycling. Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty upper first premolar teeth were used in this study. The specimens were equally and randomly allocated into four groups. TXT group (Transbond XT; n=45); HS group (Heliosit group; n=45); VF group (Vertise Flow; n=45) and (VF+P) (Vertise Flow with phosphoric acid etch; n=45). Each group was randomly divided into three equal subgroups; First subgroup (n=15) shear bond strength was tested after 15 minutes of bracket bonding, second subgroup (n=15): shear bond strength was tested after storage in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and third subgroup (n=15): shear bond strength was tested after specimens storage in distilled water at 37°C for 6 weeks and subjected to 1000 thermal cycles. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recorded for each specimen and its mean was compared between different groups. Results: Vertise flow (either with or without enamel pre-etching) and Transbond had acceptable bond strength at 15minutes debond testing. Heliosit adhesive had a significantly lower SBS at 15 minutes debond. Transbond XT had a significantly higher (SBS) compared to the other 3 groups at 24 hours debond. Thermocycling and aging conditions affected SBS in all the groups except specimens bonded using Transbond XT. Vertise Flow when used without enamel pre-etch resulted in decreased SBS below the clinically acceptable value after thermocycling and aging. Conclusions: Both Vertise Flow (when used with pre-etched enamel) and Heliosit can be used in orthodontic practice, offering simplified bonding procedures associated with clinically acceptable bond strength and minimal amount of remaining adhesive on enamel surface at debond.
Brazilian oral research
The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets bonded with different restorative systems and compare it with that afforded by an established orthodontic bonding system. Seventy human bicuspids were used, divided into five different groups with 14 teeth each. Whereas a specific orthodontic bonding resin (Transbond™ XT) was used in the control group, the restorative systems Charisma, Tetric Ceram, TPH Spectrum and Z100 were used in the other four groups. Seven days after bonding the brackets to the samples, shear forces were applied under pressure in a universal testing machine. The data collected was evaluated using the ANOVA test and, when a difference was identified, the Tukey test was applied. A 5% level of significance was adopted. The mean results of the shear bond strength tests were as follows: Group 1 (Charisma), 14.98 MPa; Group 2 (Tetric Ceram), 15.16 MPa; Group 3 (TPH), 17.70 MPa; Group 4 (Z100), 13.91 MPa; and Group 5 or control group (Transbond...
Journal of Orthodontic Science, 2016
Objectives: To assess in vitro the quantitative and qualitative debonding behavior of the AEZ debonding plier, compared to shear debonding force, in debonding orthodontic metal brackets. Materials and Methods: Thirty-two extracted premolars bonded with metal brackets were randomly divided into two equal groups according to the type of simulated debonding method; compressive bond strength (CBS) group using AEZ debonding plier (Ormco Corporation, USA) attached to the Instron machine, and shear bond strength (SBS) group using regular Instron attachments. All teeth were subjected to debonding forces, and debonding strength was assessed. The buccal surfaces were then examined, under a stereomicroscope, and adhesive remnants were scored using adhesive remnant index (ARI). Debonding strengths comparison was performed using the independent sample t-test. ARI score comparison was performed using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Correlation between debonding strength and ARI scores was performed using the Spearman correlation. Results: There was no significant difference in mean debonding strength between the SBS (M = 6.17 ± 0.77 MPa) and CBS (M = 6.68 ± 1.67 MPa) groups (P > 0.05). The CBS group showed significantly less adhesive remnants than the SBS group (P < 0.05); 62.5% of CBS group had ARI score 1, whereas 68.8% of SBS group had ARI score 3. No significant correlation between ARI and debonding strength was found (P < 0.05). Conclusion: SBS was found to produce similar debonding strength to the AEZ debonding plier in vitro. However, the AEZ debonding plier resulted in less adhesive remnant which is of great advantage for reducing chair-time during cleanup after debonding brackets.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2007
The purpose of this study was to measure and compare in-vivo and in-vitro bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to human enamel and debonded at various times. An in-vivo debonding device was validated and used to measure bond strengths in the oral environment. Methods: For the in-vitro study, mini-twin metallic premolar brackets (Opti-mesh XRT, Oromco Corp, Glendora, Calif) precoated with Transbond XT composite resin (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded to 60 extracted premolars. The teeth were divided into 4 groups of 15, and shear bond strength was tested on a universal testing machine at 4 time periods: 10 minutes, 24 hours, 1 week, and 4 weeks. For the in-vivo test, 60 premolars in 22 volunteers (dental students) from King Saud University were bonded with Mini-Twin metallic premolar brackets and divided into 4 groups; bond strengths were measured at 10 minutes, 24 hours, 1 week, and 4 weeks. Results: Statistical analysis with 1-way ANOVA at P Ͻ.05 showed no significant differences among the in-vitro or the in-vivo groups. Two-way ANOVA at P Ͻ.05 was used to compare the in-vitro results with the in-vivo results; the in-vivo group had significantly lower mean bond strength values. In addition, survival analysis, used to calculate the probability of bond failure at P Ͻ.05, confirmed the significant difference between in-vitro and in-vivo environments. Conclusions: Reported bond strength values are not time dependent.