Bond Orthodontic Brackets Research Articles

Effect of Bracket Base Sandblasting on Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets on Enamel Surface

Introduction: In evaluating bond failure, considerable attention has been paid to the various factors that affect bond strength. The bracket–resin interface is the site of usual bond failure. Therefore, many efforts have been accomplished on this interface. The aim of this study was to compare the effects of sandblasting on shear bond strength of three different metal brackets. Materials and Methods: For this experimental study, 180 human maxillary first and second premolars teeth were cleaned and stored in 0.1% thymol solution. The teeth were randomly assigned to either the control ( n = 90) or experimental group ( n = 90). Each group was subdivided into three equal groups ( n = 30). In the control group, three different non-sandblasted metal brackets (American Orthodontics, Dentarum, and 3M Unitek) were bonded with 3M (Unitek) no-mix resin. In the next stage of the experiment, similar brackets were sandblasted and bonded. All samples were pumiced and etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 15 s. The teeth were embedded in blocks of autopolymerization polymethyl methacrylate, utilizing a special device to make their slots parallel to the horizontal. Samples were stored in distilled water for 24 h before testing. Shear bond testing was carried out with UTM Instron machine. Results: Mean shear bond strength of untreated groups was 15.51, 16.60, and 18.58 MPa for American Orthodontics, Dentarum, and 3M Unitek brackets, respectively. Mean shear bond strength of sandblasted brackets was 15.8, 19.36, and 18.66 for American Orthodontics, Dentarum, and 3M Unitek brackets, respectively. Conclusion: This study showed that there was a significant difference in the mean shear bond strength between untreated and sandblasted specimens only in the Dentarum bracket groups.

Effect of Dental Chair Light on Enamel Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets Using Light Cure Based Adhesive System: An In-Vitro Study

Effect of Dental Chair Light on Enamel Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets Using Light Cure Based Adhesive System: An In-Vitro Study

Effect of Dental Chair Light on Enamel Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets Using Light Cure Based Adhesive System: An In-Vitro Study.

Aim:The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the influence of the Dental chair light on the bond strength of light cured composite resin.Materials and Methods:Sixty therapeutically extracted human premolar teeth were randomly allocated to two groups of 30 specimens each. In both groups light cured composite resin (Transbond XT) and MBT premolar metal brackets (3M Unitek) was used to bond brackets. In group I and II light curing was done using Light-emitting diode light curing units without and with the dental chair light respectively. After bonding, all samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested for shear bond strength and Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. Data was subjected to Mann Whitney U statistical test.Results:Results indicated that there was significantly higher shear bond strength (7.71 ± 1.90) for the Group II (composite cured with LED and dental chair light) compared with Group I (composite cured with LED LCU only) (5.74 ± 1.13).the obtained difference was statistically significant. There was no statistical significant difference between ARI scores in between the groups.Conclusions:light cure bonding with dental chair light switched on will produce greater bond strength than the conventional bonding. However, the ARI score were similar to both the groups. It is advised that the inexperienced orthodontist should always switch off the dental chair light while bonding for enough working time during the bracket placement.

Orthodontic Bracket Bonding Challenge for Fluorosed Teeth

Orthodontic Bracket Bonding Challenge for Fluorosed Teeth

Effects of remineralization procedures on shear bond strengths of brackets bonded to demineralized enamel surfaces with self-etch systems.

To compare the effects of different remineralization procedures on the surface roughness of teeth, shear bond strengths (SBSs), and Adhesive Remnant Index scores of self-etching primer (SEP) used to bond orthodontic brackets to previously treated demineralized enamel surfaces. A total of 140 extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into seven equal groups. Group I was the control group. A demineralization procedure was performed in the other six groups. A remineralization procedure was performed before bonding by using casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate, fluoride, a microabrasion mixture (18% hydrochloric acid-fine pumice), a microabrasion agent, and resin infiltration in groups III to VII. Brackets were bonded using a self-etching primer/adhesive system. The specimens were tested for SBS. The roughness and morphology of the enamel surfaces were analyzed using profilometer and scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance, Tukey, and G-tests at the α = .05 level. Significant differences were found in the SBS values among the seven groups (F = 32.69, P = .003). The lowest SBS value was found in group II (2.62 ± 1.46 MPa). No significant differences were found between groups I, III, and VII, between groups III and IV, or between groups V and VI. The differences in the roughness values were statistically significant among the groups (P = .002). Remineralization procedures restore the decreased SBS of orthodontic brackets and decrease surface roughness caused by enamel demineralization. SEPs provide clinically acceptable SBS values for bonding orthodontic brackets to previously treated demineralized enamel surfaces.

A Comparative Evaluation of Two Adhesion Promoters on Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets to Fluorosed Enamel: An in vivo Study

Bonding on fluorosed enamel is a challenge for orthodontists due to frequent bond failures at compromised enamel interface. Objectives: Aims of this in vivo study were to evaluate and compare effects of two adhesion promoters, Enhance LC and All-Bond 3, on bonding to fluorosed enamel in orthodontic patients.Materials and methods: Clinical study included 18 patients with age group range of 13 to 25 years. Two bond promoters Enhance LC (Reliance, Itasca, IL, USA) and All-Bond 3 (Bisco, Schaumburg, IL, USA) were used to test bond failure rate in all patients using split mouth technique. Enhance LC and All-Bond 3 were used randomly in upper right and lower left quadrants or vice versa to remove bias. Total 264 severely fluorosed teeth were bonded and monitored for 9 months. Bond failures were recorded in log book. Chi-square test was done to compare number of bracket failures between two groups and number of patients experiencing at least one bond failure. Results: Study showed significant difference between bond failure rate of two adhesion promotors (P–0.039%). Bond failure rate was 3.03% in Enhance LC group and 9.1% in All-Bond 3 group. Number of patients experiencing bond failure rate were also statistically significant (P–0.034). Conclusion: Study showed clinically acceptable bond failure rate with Enhance LC compared to All-Bond 3 group. Hence, use of Bond promoters is suggested to be mandatory before bonding in patients with fluorosed enamel.

Factors Affecting the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets - a Review of In Vitro Studies.

The adhesive material used to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth should neither fail during the treatment period, resulting in treatment delays, untoward expenses or patient inconvenience nor should it damage the enamel on debonding at the end of the treatment. Although the effectiveness of a bonding system and any unfavorable effects on the enamel may be studied by conducting in-vivo studies, it is nearly impossible to independently analyze different variables that influence a specific bonding system in the oral environment. In-vitro studies, on the other hand, may utilize more standardized protocols for testing different bonding systems and materials available. Thus, the present review focused attention on in-vitro studies and made an attempt to discuss material-related, teeth-related (fluorotic vs non-fluorotic teeth) and other miscellaneous factors that influences the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Within the limitations of this review, using conventional acid-etch technique, ceramic brackets and bonding to non-fluorotic teeth was reported to have a positive influence on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets, but higher shear bond strength found on using ceramic brackets can be dangerous for the enamel.

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface

Influence of Various Surface Conditioning Methods on Bonding Orthodontic Brackets to Porcelain Surface

Objective: To investigate the effects of different surface conditioning methods on shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces and the influence of silane coupling agent in altering the bond strength. Materials and methods: A total of 80 feldspathic porcelain specimens were used. They were divided into eight different groups based on different surface conditioning methods and combinations: Sandblasting (SAB), hydrofluoric acid (HFA), diamond bur (DB) and air abrasion (AA). Silane coupling agent was used in five groups. Metal brackets were bonded and subjected to SBS testing. The efficiencies between the five individual methods used were analyzed. ARI scoring was done after debonding. Results: The SBS range was between 3.19 and 14.38 (MPa) with a mean of 8.89 ± 3.25 (MPa). The difference between mean SBS between different groups was significant (p 0.001). When compared to AA group (9.03 ± 0.59 MPa) the non-AA group were lower (8.87 ± 3.46 MPa) but again the difference was not significant (p > 0.001). ARI score 0 was observed in 47 instances (58.8%), score 1 was observed in 25 instances (31.2%). Conclusion: The results indicated that surface conditioning alone without silanation produced significantly low SBS. Air abrasion followed by silanation produced favorable bond strength and might have the potential to replace alternative methods.

SIBSystem : une innovation dans le domaine du collage des attaches orthodontiques?

The orthodontic bracket placement has known two major improvements these last fifty years: first with the ability of bonding brackets directly on the enamel (Newmann 1965); second with the indirect bonding procedure introduced by Silvermann and Cohen in 1972. If we put aside the technological evolutions of bonding materials (brackets and adhesives), few refinements have occurred regarding the protocols in this period of time. Furthermore, direct bonding procedure seems to be used by a majority of orthodontists despite the rapidity, accuracy and ergonomics promised by indirect bonding protocol. The main originality of the system detailed in this article is to bond orthodontic brackets in a virtually predetermined position with indirect bonding advantages but with the efficiency of direct bonding because the adhesive is applied directly on the bracket base without pre-bonding necessity. This innovation has been allowed by the use of up-to-date CFAO technology. The article first describes the two components of the SIBSystem (SIBClip and SIBTray) and details the manufacturing stages. The clinical use is then evoked as well as the cautions and limits of this innovative bonding system.

Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate and compare shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characters of the Transbond XT (BisGMA-based composite), Esthet-X flow (flowable composite), Filtek Z-350 (flowable composite). Materials and methods A total of 90 human premolars were divided into group I, Transbond XT (n = 30); group II, Esthet-X flow (n = 30) and group III, Filtek Z-350 (n = 30), the preadjusted edgewise stainless steel premolar brackets were bonded to evaluate the shear bond and debonding properties. Results The results of the statistical analysis comparing the three groups indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups. In general, the SBS with groups I and III exhibited similar bond strength with 11.58 ± 1.3 MPa and 11.07 ± 1.0 MPa respectively. Groups III exhibited least bond strength of 10.7 ± 2 MPa. In modified adhesive remnant index (ARI) the majority of bond failures occurred at enamel-adhesive interface or cohesive type failure in all the three groups. Groups II and III showed increased frequency of score 2, 4 and 5 compared to group I which showed increased frequency of score 0 and 1. Conclusion When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained, flowable composites can be effectively applied to orthodontic bracket bonding. How to cite this article Pradeep S, Shanthraj R, Kiran HJ, Shivalinga BM. Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding. World J Dent 2013;4(1):6-16.

Pevnost vazby adhezivních materiálů k lepení ortodontických zámků

Pevnost vazby adhezivních materiálů k lepení ortodontických zámků

Clinical acceptability of two self-etch adhesive resins for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel

To determine whether two self-adhesive resin cements, Clearfil SA and RelyX, can be used to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel. 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. 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. The shear bond strengths of the self-etch adhesive resin cements may be inadequate to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel.

Twelve-month Bracket Failure Rate with Amorphous Calcium Phosphate Bonding System

The aim of the study was to compare the survival rate of orthodontic brackets over a 12-month period using amorphous calcium phosphate (ACP) bonding system with a conventional adhesive (CA). In 30 patients with a mean age of 15 years 7 months, one operator bonded 138 brackets with a split-mouth design, using a resin-based CA and ACP-containing adhesive. The survival rate of the brackets was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions with respect to bonding procedure, dental arch, type of tooth (incisor, canine, and premolar), and patients' gender were compared using the log-rank test. The bond failure interface was determined using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). The bond failure rates of the CA and ACP-containing adhesive were 2.67 and 3.8 per cent, respectively. There was no significant difference between the failure rates of ACP and CA-bonded systems (P > 0.05). Survival rates did not show significant differences between the upper and lower dental arches (P > 0.05). Lower survival rates were found for canine and premolar teeth than incisors (P < 0.05). Bond failure rates were higher for males than females (P < 0.05). There was a significant difference for ARI scores between the adhesive materials (P = 0.028); more of the ACP-based adhesive was left on the tooth at debond. ACP-containing adhesive can be effectively used to bond orthodontic brackets and can serve as a practicable alternative to the conventional bonding adhesives.

Improvement of the orthodontic bracket bond strength with pre-heated composite restoratives

Aim.This study aimed to evaluate the effect of pre-heated composite restoratives on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. Methods. The following materials were tested: a microhybrid composite restorative (Filtek Z250), two nanofilled composite restoratives (Filtek Z350 and NT Premium), a nanohybrid composite restorative (Brilliant) and a conventional orthodontic adhesive (Transbond XT). All materials were stored for 1 h in the incubator either at 25°C (room temperature simulation) or 60°C before bonding 100 orthodontic brackets on bovine lower incisors (n = 10). One Coat Bond SL and Transbond XT were used to bond the composite restoratives and the Transbond XT adhesive paste, respectively. After storage in distilled water for 24 h, the brackets were subjected to SBS test at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until bracket debonding. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assigned to the fractured specimens. Data were analyzed using the one-way ANOVA and the Tukey post-hoc test (p < 0.05). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare ARI scores between the groups (p < 0.05). Results. There was no statistically significant difference between the materials at room temperature. Samples bonded with pre-heated materials showed a statistically higher SBS than those bonded with room temperature materials. Samples bonded with the pre-heated orthodontic adhesive showed the highest SBS among all the pre-heated materials. All preheated composite restoratives produced an SBS mean higher than that of Transbond XT stored at room temperature. Conclusion. The use of pre-heated composite restoratives and orthodontic adhesives might be an alternative approach to bond orthodontic brackets.

The Efficacy Of Glass Ionomer Hybrid As Orthodontic Brackets Adhesives To Inhibit Calsium Released Of The Enamel

Composite resins are predominantly used to bond orthodontic brackets onto teeth. These can lead to calcium released of the enamel surrounding the brackets. Purpose : To observe calcium release during the use of adhesives which release fluoride Method : This experimental study was design to determine the calcium released after soaking in the acid solution. This in vitro study used forty extracted human premolars (20 teeth were bonded with glass ionomer, and 20 teeth were bonded with glass ionomer hybrid). Half of the teeth in each group were treated with fluoride application and the other half were not treated fluoride application topically. Calcium released of the enamel was evaluated using Spectrofotometer. Result : The results showed that there was a significant difference between glass ionomer group without and with fluoride application (p 0,005) in the group of glass ionomer hybrid without and with fluoride application topically. Conclusion : The adhesive glass ionomer hybrid could prevent calcium released with or without the usage of sodium fluoride.

Effects of demineralizaton-inhibition procedures on the bond strength of brackets bonded to demineralized enamel surface

ObjectiveTo study and compare the effects of different demineralization-inhibition methods on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fracture mode of an adhesive used to bond orthodontic brackets to demineralized enamel surfaces.MethodsEighty freshly extracted, human maxillary premolars were divided into 4 equal groups and demineralized over the course of 21 days. Brackets were bonded to the demineralized enamel of teeth in Group 1. In Group 2, bonding was performed following resin infiltration (ICON®, DMG, Hamburg, Germany). Before bonding, pre-treatment with acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) or solutions containing casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate with 2% neutral sodium fluoride (CPP-ACP/wF) was performed in Groups 3 and 4, respectively. The SBS values of the brackets were measured and recorded following mechanical shearing of the bracket from the tooth surface. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after the brackets failed. Statistical comparisons were performed using one-way ANOVA, Tukey's post-tests, and G-tests.ResultsSignificant differences were found in some of the intergroup comparisons of the SBS values (F = 39.287, p < 0.001). No significant differences were found between the values for the APF-gel and control groups, whereas significantly higher SBS values were recorded for the resin-infiltrated and CPP-ACP/wF-treated groups. The ARI scores were also significantly different among the 4 groups (p < 0.001).ConclusionsTooth surfaces exposed to resin infiltration and CPP-ACP/wF application showed higher debonding forces than the untreated, demineralized surfaces.

Bonding with self-etching primers--pumice or pre-etch? An in vitro study

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths (SBSs) of orthodontic brackets bonded with self-etching primer (SEP) using different enamel surface preparations. A two-by-two factorial study design was used. Sixty human premolars were harvested, cleaned, and randomly assigned to four groups (n = 15 per group). Teeth were bathed in saliva for 48 hours to form a pellicle. Treatments were assigned as follows: group 1 was pumiced for 10 seconds and pre-etched for 5 seconds with 37 per cent phosphoric acid before bonding with SEP (Transbond Plus). Group 2 was pumiced for 10 seconds before bonding. Group 3 was pre-etched for 5 seconds before bonding. Group 4 had no mechanical or chemical preparation before bonding. All teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at 37°C before debonding. The SBS values and adhesive remnant index (ARI) score were recorded. The SBS values (± 1 SD) for groups 1-4 were 22.9 ± 6.6, 16.1 ± 7.3, 36.2 ± 8.2, and 13.1 ± 10.1 MPa, respectively. Two-way analysis of variance and subsequent contrasts showed statistically significant differences among treatment groups. ARI scores indicated the majority of adhesive remained on the bracket for all four groups. Pre-etching the bonding surface for 5 seconds with 37 per cent phosphoric acid, instead of pumicing, when using SEPs to bond orthodontic brackets, resulted in greater SBSs.

Effects of surface conditioning on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns

An increase in the number of adults seeking orthodontic treatment has given rise to new problems for orthodontists, one of which is the need to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth restored with temporary crowns. Many prefabricated temporary crowns are composed of polycarbonates or thermoplastic polymers; bonding to these surfaces is complex because of the composition, surface integrity, and resistance of the crowns. The bond must be sufficient to resist breakage from the forces of orthodontic biomechanics and oral functions including mastication. The purpose of this study was to test, in vitro, the effect of different surface treatments on the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns. Eighty polycarbonate crowns for the maxillary right central incisor were evenly divided into 4 groups, and the facial surfaces were subjected to one of the following conditions: group A (control): no treatment; group B: the surface was sandblasted with 50 mum aluminum oxide particles; group C: the glazed surface was removed with a diamond bur; and group D: the surface was etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid. Precoated Victory metal brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded to the facial surface of half (n = 10) of the polycarbonate crowns in each group, and precoated Clarity ceramic brackets (3M Unitek) were bonded to the facial surface of the other half (n = 10). Each was debonded with a shear load in a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.254 mm per minute, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to analyze the sites of bond failure. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), post-hoc t test with the Bonferroni adjustment, Student t test, and chi-square test with the Yates correction were used for statistical analysis. There was a significant difference between group B (sandblasting) and all other ceramic and metal groups. In the metal groups, there was a slight difference between group C (diamond bur) and group A (control). According to the ARI, sandblasting was the only surface treatment to significantly affect the adhesion of metal and ceramic brackets to polycarbonate crowns. There was no statistically significant difference between the metal and ceramic brackets in group B (sandblasting). There was a statistically significant difference between metal and ceramic brackets in each group, with the exception of group C (diamond bur), which was just below statistical significance. Metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to temporary polycarbonate crowns will most likely not withstand the forces of orthodontic biomechanics. However, sandblasting polycarbonate crowns consistently increased the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets. A diamond bur effectively roughens the surface of a polycarbonate crown but with no gain in bond strength. Likewise, etching the surface of polycarbonate crowns with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid is ineffective. Ceramic brackets bonded to sandblasted polycarbonate crowns produced the highest mean shear bond strength (2.87 MPa), although this value is far below bond strengths with natural tooth surfaces.

One-component self-etching primer: a seventh generation of orthodontic bonding system?

The purpose of this study was to compare the bond strengths and to evaluate the debonding site using the adhesive remnant index (ARI) provided by a conventional acid-etch conditioner and a new self-etching adhesive system, Xeno IV (Dentsply Caulk). One hundred and eighty bovine lower incisors were randomly divided into six groups (n = 30). In groups 1, 2, and 3, Transbond XT (3M Unitek) composite was used to bond the brackets to enamel samples conditioned with 37 per cent phosphoric acid + XT primer (3M Unitek), Xeno IV + XT primer, or Xeno IV only, respectively. In groups 4, 5, and 6, the bonding procedures were performed using Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corp.) resin-modified glass ionomer cement unconditioned, enamel conditioned with 37 per cent phosphoric acid, or Xeno IV, respectively. All samples underwent thermocycling and then shear bond strength (SBS) testing was performed using a universal testing machine (Emic DL 10.000). Analysis of variance was applied. For the post hoc test, the Tukey's test was used. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests were used to assess ARI scores. The results demonstrated no statistical differences between groups 1, 2, and 3. However, statistically significant differences were found between these samples and groups 4, 5, and 6. With regard to ARI score, the highest mean value was found in group 5 (Fuji Ortho LC + 37 per cent acid conditioning), whereas group 4 (Fuji Ortho LC + no conditioning) had the lowest SBS. Xeno IV self-etching bonding agent was able to bond orthodontic brackets in association with Transbond XT composite as well as with Fuji Ortho LC, thus maximizing bracket bonding.