Abstract
Orthodontic adhesives have similar properties in terms of fluoride release, roughness, shear bond strength or cement debris for specific clinical conditions. Three commercial consecrated orthodontic adhesives (Opal Seal®, Blugloo®, Light Bond®) were compared with an experimental orthodontic material (C1). Brackets were bonded to enamel using a self-etch technique followed by adhesive application and then de-bonded 60 days later. Share bond strength evaluation, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and fluoride release analysis were performed. The highest amount of daily and cumulative fluoride release was obtained for the experimental material, while the lowest value was observed for Opal Seal®. The materials evaluated in the current study presented adequate shear bond strength, with the experimental material having a mean value higher than Opal Seal and Blugloo. The atomic force microscopy measurements indicated that the smoothest initial sample is Opal Seal® followed by Light Bond®. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation indicated different aspects of cement debris on the enamel and/or bracket surface, according to the type of adhesive. The experimental material C1 presented adequate properties in terms of shear bond strength, fluoride release, roughness and enamel characteristics after de-bonding, compared to the commercial materials. Under these circumstances, it can be considered for clinical testing.
Highlights
This study aims at evaluating the fluor release and shear bond strength of four orthodontic cements (three consecrated commercial adhesives (Opal Seal (Opal Orthodontics, South Jordan, UT, USA), Blugloo (Ormco Corporation, Glendora, CA, USA), Light Bond
Fluoride release values per day and cumulative during the 60 days of testing are displayed in Figures 2 and 3
The highest mean value was observed in case of Light Bond, while the lowest was identified for Opal Seal (Table 2)
Summary
Multi-bracket treatment still represents the most widely used type of treatment among orthodontic applications, especially during childhood and adolescence when it is the treatment of choice [1] It has advantages, and risks, most frequently being encountered incidents such as bracket detachment, or development of gingival inflammation, increased susceptibility to caries, decalcifications and white spot lesions [2,3]. White spot lesions’ occurrence has been reported to vary from 2% to 97%, while in patients without orthodontic treatment it is between 11% and 24% [4,5] They are caused by enamel demineralization due to bacterial plaque deposits and carbohydrate metabolism with acidic release. An amount of 200–300 μg/cm of fluor released per month is considered sufficient to assure demineralization protection [7]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call