Transbond MIP Research Articles

Risk assessment of predicted serum concentrations of bisphenol A in children and adults following treatment with dental composite restoratives, dental sealants, or orthodontic adhesives using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling

Bisphenol A (BPA) is a chemical used to manufacture bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (BisGMA). BisGMA has been used for decades in dental composite restoratives, sealants, and adhesives. Based on published studies, exposure to low concentrations of BPA are possible from dental and orthodontic devices. The serum BPA concentrations arising from such devices and oral doses were predicted using a PBPK model in children and adult females based on 1) published extraction data for cured and uncured 3M ESPE Filtek Supreme Ultra Flowable, 3M ESPE Filtek Bulk Fill Restorative, and 3M ESPE Clinpro Sealant and 2) published 20% ethanol/water and water rinsate data following orthodontic application with 3M ESPE Transbond MIP Primer and 3M ESPE Transbond XT Adhesive. Predicted oral exposure to BPA arising from these dental and orthodontic devices is low (median <10 ng/treatment) and predicted serum BPA concentrations were also low (<10−4 nM). Even the maximum predicted exposure in this study (533.2 ng/treatment) yields a margin of exposure of 7.5 relative to the EFSA t-TDI (4 μg/kg-day) and is only 2.8% of the daily BPA exposure for the US population in a 58-kg woman (15,660 ng/day). Therefore, the exposure to BPA arising from the 3M ESPE dental and orthodontic devices evaluated in this study is negligible relative to daily BPA exposure in the general population and these potential BPA sources do not constitute a risk to patients.

Evaluation of enamel loss by scanning electron microscopy after debonding brackets place with four different adhesives.

The clinically adequate shear bond strengths (SBS) should be from 2.8 to 10 MPa. The aim of this research is to observe tooth enamel loss through a scanning electron microscope (SEM) during the debonding of braces of four adhesive systems. Then, 100 premolars were used in 4 groups of 25 specimens each, for Transbond MIP (G1), Enlight (G2), Stylus (G3), and Transbond Plus SEP (G4). The research was done under the NOM ISO/TS 11405:2015. Gemini 3M were placed under the manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS test was done at 24 hr in an Instron electromechanical universal testing machine at 1 mm/1 min. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured, all of the brackets where examined in the SEM. For the shear bonding strength G1 = 10.09 ± 2.73 MPa, G2 = 9.27 ± 3.99 MPa, G3 = 7.83 ± 4.46 MPa, and G4 = 6.40 ± 2.85 MPa statistically significant differences were found when comparing the four groups (p = .002). In the Tukey post hoc test, G1 versus G4 and G2 versus G4, statistically significant differences were found. For the ARI a value of 1 in 46%, followed by a value of 2 in 38%, a value of 3 in 13% and a value of 0 in 3% of the total samples, finding statistically significant differences (p < .001). In relation to the tooth enamel loss due to SBS, statistically significant differences were found (p = .326). G1 and G4 had not statistically significant differences. Even though our results concur with the appropriate clinical values, we observed tooth enamel loss with Transbond Plus SEP and Stylus.

Genotoxic and cytotoxic potential of methacrylate-based orthodontic adhesives

ObjectivesThe biocompatibility of methacrylate-based adhesives is a topic that is intensively discussed in dentistry. Since only limited evidence concerning the cyto- and genotoxicity of orthodontic adhesives is available, the aim of this study was to measure the genotoxic potential of seven orthodontic methacrylate-based adhesives.Materials and methodsThe XTT assay was utilized to determine the cytotoxicity of Assure Plus, Assure Bonding Resin, ExciTE F, OptiBond Solo Plus, Scotchbond Universal Adhesive, Transbond MIP, and Transbond XT after an incubation period of 24 h on human gingival fibroblasts. We also performed the γH2AX assay to explore the genotoxic potential of the adhesives within cytotoxic dose ranges after an incubation period of 6 h.ResultsThe XTT assay showed a concentration-dependent reduction in cell viability. The decrease in cellular viability was in the same dose range most significant for Assure Plus, rendering it the adhesive material with the highest cytotoxicity. Employing the γH2AX assay, a concentration-dependent increase in H2AX phosphorylation was detected, indicating induction of DNA damage.ConclusionsFor most products, a linear correlation between the material concentration and γH2AX foci was observed. The most severe effect on γH2AX focus induction was found for Transbond MIP, which was the only adhesive in the test group containing the co-initiator diphenyliodonium hexafluorophosphate (DPIHP).Clinical relevanceThe data indicate that orthodontic adhesives, notably Transbond MIP, bear a genotoxic potential. Since the study was performed with in vitro cultivated cells, a direct translation of the findings to in vivo exposure conditions should be considered with great diligence.

Comparison of shear bond strength of light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer and moist insensitive primer on contaminated enamel

Despite rapid developments in adhesive technology, contamination of bonding surfaces remains a major problem. The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of contamination on shear bond strength of two adhesive systems: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America Corp) and Moist Insensitive Primer (Transbond MIP, 3M Unitek) combination with Transbond XT (light-activated), under different enamel conditions. Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces of 42 human premolars. The total sample was divided into 6 groups (n = 7 teeth) and brackets were bonded with one of the 2 adhesives under 3 enamel surface conditions: (1) dry (2) saliva-contaminated (3) saliva and blood-contaminated. The shear bond strength was tested using Universal Strength Tester Autograph Shimadzu Corp. There was no significant difference in the shear bond strength between dry, saliva, and saliva-blood contamination bonded with MIP combined Transbond XT. There were significant differences in the shear bond strengths between dry and saliva -blood contaminated enamel bonded with Fuji Ortho LC. In conclusion, Fuji Ortho LC is not recommended for clinical bonding application under saliva-blood contaminated enamel conditions.

Bond strength of orthodontic adhesives to dry and saliva-moistened enamel – a comparative in vitro study

salivamoistened enamel. Design/methodology/approach: One hundred twenty stainless steel brackets were bonded to human mandibular third molars with six materials: Enlight LC® (Ormco Corp), Grengloo® (Ormco Corp), Light Bond® (Reliance Orthodontic Products), Charisma® (Heraeus Kulzer), SmartBond® (Gestenco), and Transbond XT® with MIP® primer (3M Unitek). One half of the specimens in each group (n=10) was bonded to dry enamel, while the other half to saliva-moistened enamel. Bond strength testing was performed with a wire loop loading technique after 30-min incubation in artificial saliva. Failure mode was evaluated using adhesive remaining index (ARI). Findings: No significant differences in bond strength to dry enamel were noted for all composite materials (p&gt;0.05). SmartBond exhibited significantly greater bond strength to moistened enamel (7.10 ± 1.47 MPa) and comparable with other composite materials to dry enamel. Composite materials demonstrated significantly reduced bond strength to saliva-moistened enamel (p&lt;0.001), except for Transbond MIP, whose bond strength was not significantly decreased by saliva contamination (p=0.089). There was not statistically significant difference between bond strength of SmartBond and Transbond to saliva contaminated enamel. A higher incidence of cohesive failures was noted for all materials. Research limitations/implications: Composite light-cured materials provide adequate bond strength to dry enamel. Cyanoacrylate adhesive provides sufficient bond strength only under moist conditions. Transbond XT+MIP has sufficient bond strength to either dry or saliva-moistened enamel. Practical implications: The study evaluated the bonding strength of orthodontic brackets, which is a critical parameter in orthodontics, especially in situations that do not allow for proper isolation from saliva, such as bonding to impacted teeth following surgical exposure. Originality/value: Bond strengths evaluated with loop loading technique in different study environments would help the orthodontist to choose the most effective adhesive for the specific clinical situation.

Adhesive performance of precoated brackets after expiration.

To evaluate adhesive performance in terms of debonding forces of precoated metal and ceramic brackets 4 years after expiration. Buccal and lingual surfaces of embedded extracted maxillary premolars were etched with 34% Tooth Conditioner Gel (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del), rinsed, and dried. Transbond MIP (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was applied prior to placing adhesive precoated brackets (APC II Victory stainless steel and APC Plus Clarity ceramic brackets, 3M Unitek). The preexpiration brackets had 29-35 months before, and the postexpiration brackets were 45-52 months past, their expiration dates. Sample size was 17-21 per group. Debonding forces were determined by subjecting the bonded brackets to a shear force in a universal testing machine. Debonding forces were compared using two-way ANOVA. Debonded surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine failure modes, which were compared using the chi-square test. No statistically significant difference was found in debonding forces (P = .8581) or failure modes (P = .4538) between expired and unexpired brackets. Metal brackets required statistically significantly higher debonding forces than did ceramic brackets (P = .0001). For both expired and unexpired brackets, failure modes were mostly cohesive in the adhesive layer for ceramic brackets, and mixed between adhesive and cohesive failure in the adhesive layer for metal brackets. Adhesive precoated brackets did not have any reduction in enamel-adhesion properties up to 4 years after their expiration date. Extended shelf life testing for precoated dental brackets may be worth considering.

Comparación de fuerza de adhesión de dos sistemas ortodóncicos con afinidad a la humedad en dos condiciones de superficie del esmalte

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with two systems of hydrophilic adhesives: (I) a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Smarbond, International Gestenco) and (II) a composite system (Transbond XT and Transbond™ IPM) in two enamel conditions: dry and artificial saliva contaminated. Materials and methods100 extracted premolars were stored in distilled water at 4 degrees Celsius. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and convenience distributed into 5 groups: (1) composite resin in enamel under dry conditions, (2) cyanoacrylate adhesive in dry enamel condition, (3) composite resin in enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva before the primer, (4) composite resin enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva after the primer, and (5) cyanoacrylate adhesive in artificial saliva contaminated enamel condition. The results showed that the adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP obtained the highest values of resistance to debonding in the dry enamel surface. ConclusionsThe adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP I provide an adequate in vitro resistance to debonding in every enamel condition. The system based on cyanoacrylate adhesive Smartbond obtained proper values of resistance to debonding in dry enamel, however it obtained the lowest values in contaminated with enamel artificial saliva conditions, unsuitable for orthodontics, and even some samples were not cemented successfully in vitro under these conditions.

Comparison between the adhesion forces of two orthodontic systems with moisture affinity in two enamel surface conditions

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with two systems of hydrophilic adhesives: (I) a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Smartbond, International Gestenco) and (II) a composite system (Transbond XT and Transbond™ IPM) in two enamel conditions: dry and artificial saliva contaminated. Materials and methods100 extracted premolars were stored in distilled water at 4 degrees Celsius. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and convenience distributed into 5 groups: (1) composite resin in enamel under dry conditions, (2) cyanoacrylate adhesive in dry enamel condition, (3) composite resin in enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva before the primer, (4) composite resin enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva after the primer, and (5) cyanoacrylate adhesive in artificial saliva contaminated enamel condition. The results showed that the adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP obtained the highest values of resistance to debonding in the dry enamel surface. ConclusionsThe adhesive system Transbond XT™ and Transbond MIP I provide an adequate in vitro resistance to debonding in every enamel condition. The system based on cyanoacrylate adhesive Smartbond obtained proper values of resistance to debonding in dry enamel, however it obtained the lowest values in contaminated with enamel artificial saliva conditions, unsuitable for orthodontics, and even some samples were not cemented successfully in vitro under these conditions.

Comparison of the shear bond strength of brackets between two adhesive systems (SEP and MIP Transbond) at 60 minutes and 24 hours

The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance when debonding the braces of the enamel after 60 minutes and 24 hours of its fixation with two different adhesive systems. 60 bicuspids where divided into 4 groups of 15 samples each one and were treated with self-etching adhesive SEP Transbond Plus 3M Unitek (group 3 and 4) and conventional adhesive Transbond MIP 3M Unitek (group 1 and 2). The samples were submitted to tangential forces with the universal machine Instron with speed load shedding 1.0mm/min to obtain the resistance when debonding. After doing the statically analysis ANOVA showed that there are not significant statically difference at the debonding forces between Transbond MIP at 24 hours (mean=6.8, SD=2.9) and SEP Transbond at 24 hours (mean=6.1, SD=2.8) (t=0.73 p=0.46). There is no statistically significant difference between Transbond MIP at 60 minutes (mean=6.01 SD=5.2) and SEP Transbond Plus at 60 minutes (mean=7.35, SD=5.1) (t=-.71 p=0.48). It was seen lees than the middle of the remnant adhesive in most of the sample.

Comparación de la resistencia al desprendimiento de brackets entre dos sistemas adhesivos (SEP y MIP Transbond) a 60 minutos y 24 horas

The purpose of this study was to compare the resistance when debonding the braces of the enamel after 60 minutes and 24 hours of its fixation with two different adhesive systems. 60 bicuspids where divided into 4 groups of 15 samples each one and were treated with self-etching adhesive SEP Transbond Plus 3M Unitek (group 3 and 4) and conventional adhesive Transbond MIP 3M Unitek (group 1 and 2). The samples were submitted to tangential forces with the universal machine Instron with speed load shedding 1.0mm/min to obtain the resistance when debonding. After doing the statically analysis ANOVA showed that there are not significant statically difference at the debonding forces between Transbond MIP at 24 hours (mean = 6.8, SD = 2.9) and SEP Transbond at 24 hours (mean = 6.1, SD = 2.8) (t = 0.73 p = 0.46). There is no statistically significant difference between Transbond MIP at 60 minutes (mean = 6.01 SD = 5.2) and SEP Transbond Plus at 60 min (mean = 7.35, SD = 5.1) (t = -.71 p = 0.48). It was seen lees than the middle of the remnant adhesive in most of the sample.

Effect of moisture on dental enamel in the interaction of two orthodontic bonding systems

The purpose of this study was to assess by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the remaining adhesive interface after debonding orthodontic attachments bonded to bovine teeth with the use of hydrophilic and hydrophobic primers under different dental substrate moisture conditions. Twenty mandibular incisors were divided into four groups (n = 5). In Group I, bracket bonding was performed with Transbond MIP hydrophilic primer and Transbond XT adhesive paste applied to moist substrate, and in Group II a bonding system comprising Transbond XT hydrophobic primer and adhesive paste was applied to moist substrate. Brackets were bonded to the specimens in Groups III and IV using the same adhesive systems, but on dry dental enamel. The images were qualitatively assessed by SEM. The absence of moisture in etched enamel enabled better interaction between bonding materials and the adamantine structure. The hydrophobic primer achieved the worst micromechanical interlocking results when applied to a moist dental structure, whereas the hydrophilic system proved versatile, yielding acceptable results in moist conditions and excellent interaction in the absence of contamination. The authors assert that the best condition for the application of primers to dental enamel occurs in the absence of moisture.

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Hydrophilic Bonding Materials: An in vitro Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of hydrophilic materials like Transbond MIP with Assure-fluoride releasing light cure sealant paste system (Reliance orthodontic product), Enhance Lc-adhesion booster (Reliance Orthodontics) Prime and Bond NT-one step adhesive with nanotechnology (Dentsply Product India) with Transbond XT as the control group. The study was conducted on 180 extracted human premolar teeth which were divided into five main groups. Each group contained 36 teeth, which were further subdivided into three subgroups containing 12 teeth. The teeth were bonded in three different surface environments namely dry, contaminated with artificial saliva and reprimed after contamination with artificial salvia. The brackets were bonded and cured. The shear bond strength was tested using Instron universal testing machine (4501). The results were subjected to statistical analysis like 3 factorial ANOVA and compared to post-hoc using the Student Newman levels test. The residual resin on the tooth surface after debonding was evaluated with adhesive remnant index. The results revealed that in situations in which moisture contamination is critical there is distinct advantage in using hydrophilic primers.

Bond Strengths of Metal, Ceramic and Polymer Brackets in Combination with Different Enamel Preconditioning Methods

Introduction: Adhesive technology is widely spread throughout the different specialities of dentistry. In orthodontics the bonding of brackets accounts for a significant percentage of time in practice routine. Bond strength is dependent on several factors such as enamel conditioning, adhesive technology and the material and construction of the bracket base. It was the intention of the present study to investigate the bond strength in relation to the above mentioned parameters. Method: Four different brackets (metal, ceramic, polymer, fiber reinforced polymer) were evaluated for their bond strength during tensile testing with a universal testing machine using a conventional composite (Transbond MIP, XT) and in the case of the fiber reinforced bracket additionally a specially designed adhesive (Quick-Bond). Enamel conditioning was achieved with conventional etching, air-abrasion or a combination of both techniques. ARI (adhesive remnant index) scores were evaluated. Results: There were significant differences between the types of enamel conditioning. All brackets showed significantly lower bonding forces when the enamel was prepared with air-abrasion alone. Metal brackets had the highest bonding strength and the fiber reinforced composite brackets with the conventional adhesive the lowest. The ARI scores showed good correlation to the bonding forces, with low bonding forces presenting as a detachment at the enamel-adhesive interface. Conclusion: Air-abrasion alone showed significantly lower bonding forces than enamel conditioning with etching for all bracket types. This finding was independent of the bracket material, base design or adhesive system.

Effect of N-acetyl cysteine on orthodontic primers cytotoxicity

Objectives The aims of this study were to evaluate the cytotoxicity of four orthodontic primers, including two hydrophilic and two hydrophobic materials, and to investigate the role of the reactive oxygen species (ROS) in induced cell damage. Moreover, the effects of the anti-oxidant N-acetyl cysteine (NAC) on primers toxicity was analyzed. Methods Human gingival fibroblasts (HGF) were exposed to different concentrations of primers (0–0.25 mg/ml) in the presence or absence of NAC, and the cytotoxicity was assessed by the MTT assay, while cell death was quantified by flow cytometry after propidium iodide staining. The increase in the induced ROS levels was detected by flow cytometry measuring the fluorescence of the oxidation-sensitive dye 2′,7′-dichlorofluorescein diacetate (DCFH-DA). Results All materials decreased cell viability in a dose-related manner after a 24 h exposure period. Cytotoxicity of orthodontic primers based on concentrations which caused a 50% decrease in cell viability (TC 50) in HGF was ranked as follows (median values): Eagle Fluorsure (0.078 mg/ml) > Transbond XT (0.081 mg/ml) > Transbond MIP (0.128 mg/ml) > Ortho solo (0.130 mg/ml). Moreover, in HGF cells, all materials induced a dose-dependent increase in ROS levels compared to untreated cells. Incubation of HGF with NAC significantly reduced ROS production and decreased the cell damage and cytotoxicity caused by all materials tested ( p < 0.001). Significance Our results suggested that hydrophilic primers were less cytotoxic than hydrophobic materials. Moreover, we demonstrated a major role of ROS in the induction of cell death since the antioxidant N-acetyl cysteine was able to prevent cell damage induced by all materials tested.

Efficacy of a filled-resin sealant in preventing decalcification during orthodontic treatment

Enamel decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a persistent problem. Resin-based sealants have been developed to protect enamel from decalcification. The purpose of this in-vivo study was to compare the effect of a fluoride-releasing filled enamel sealant with that of an unfilled nonfluoride control. A total of 177 teeth in 18 patients were evaluated over a period of 12 to 18 months. A split-mouth design was used; half the teeth were treated with the fluoride-releasing sealant (Pro Seal, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill), and the contralateral teeth received the control (Transbond MIP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The teeth were photographed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. A panel of 12 orthodontic faculty and residents evaluated the photographs for decalcification on a graded scale. Sixty-nine percent of the teeth treated with Pro Seal showed progressive decalcification from T1 to T2 vs 72% of those treated with Transbond MIP. In the comparison of the contralateral paired teeth, there was a small average net disadvantage of -0.06 of a tooth per patient (95% CI, -0.97 to 0.85) for Pro Seal compared with Transbond MIP. That difference of 0.06 of a tooth is neither statistically significant (P = 0.90) nor clinically important. The 2 products tested were equivalent in their inhibition of decalcification during orthodontic treatment. The additional time and expense of using the fluoride-releasing sealant to prevent decalcification does not appear to be justified.

An in vitro comparative assessment of different enamel contaminants during bracket bonding

In orthodontics, adhesive failures can occur because of saliva contamination during bonding. However, most in vitro studies concerning bond strength of saliva-contaminated enamel disregard the influence of temperature changes in a wet environment. The aim of the present study was to compare the influence of saliva, blood and etching gel remnant contamination on shear bond strength (SBS) after thermocycling. After etching of extracted human third molars (n = 80), a conventional primer (Transbond XT) and a moisture-insensitive primer (Transbond MIP) were evaluated using the adhesive, Transbond XT, under dry conditions and after contamination with saliva, blood and etching gel remnants. To simulate temperature changes and the moisture of saliva in the oral cavity, all samples were thermocycled (6,000 x 5 degrees C/55 degrees C) in a mastication device before SBS testing. A Mann-Whitney U test was used to determine statistical differences. Under dry conditions Transbond XT and Transbond MIP showed no significant difference in SBS. However, clinically unacceptable (P = 0.005) bond strength was observed using Transbond XT after saliva and blood contamination. In wet conditions only Transbond MIP showed sufficient bond strength. If contamination during bonding is expected, a hydrophilic primer should be used. Under dry conditions hydrophilic or hydrophobic primers could be applied. Blood contamination seems to be a more serious problem for bond strength than saliva or etching gel contamination.

Effects of a chlorhexidine varnish on shear bond strength in indirect bonding.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of an antimicrobial varnish on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded with an indirect bonding resin. For this purpose, 60 noncarious human premolars were divided into three equal groups. Group 1 was an indirect bonding control group and, after acid etching of the enamel, the brackets were indirectly bonded to the teeth with an indirect bonding resin. In group 2, before bonding, an antimicrobial varnish was painted on the etched enamel and indirect bonding was carried out as in group 1. In group 3, Transbond MIP primer and the antimicrobial varnish were thoroughly mixed in a 1:2 proportion, applied to the enamel surface, light cured for 20 seconds, and the brackets were direct bonded. A universal testing machine was used to determine the maximum load necessary to debond the brackets, the SBS values recorded, and the adhesive remnant index scores determined. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey HSD, and chi-square tests. Results of ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in the SBS among the various groups tested (P < .05). Indirect bonding of brackets with Sondhi Rapid Set after the application of the antimicrobial varnish showed significantly lower SBS when compared with both the group 2, indirect bonding control group, and the group 3, direct bonded-antimicrobial varnish group.

Effects of blood contamination on the shear bond strengths of conventional and hydrophilic primers

The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of blood contamination on the shear bond strength and failure site of 2 orthodontic primers (Transbond XT and Transbond MIP; 3M/Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) when used with adhesive-precoated brackets (APC II brackets; 3M/Unitek). One hundred twenty bovine permanent mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 8 groups; each group contained 15 specimens. Each primer-adhesive combination was tested under a different enamel surface condition: dry, blood contamination before priming, blood contamination after priming, or blood contamination before and after priming. Stainless steel APC II brackets were bonded to the teeth. After bonding, all samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested for shear bond strength. Noncontaminated enamel surfaces had the highest bond strengths for both conventional and hydrophilic primers; their values were almost the same. Under blood-contaminated conditions, both primers showed significantly lower shear bond strengths. For each type of primer, no significant differences were reported among the blood-contaminated groups. Significant differences in debond locations were found among the groups bonded with the 2 primers under the various enamel surface conditions. Blood contamination of enamel during the bonding procedure of conventional and hydrophilic primers significantly lowers their bond strength values and might produce a bond strength that is not clinically adequate.

Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers

The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with Transbond Moisture-Insensitive Primer (MIP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (SEP, 3M Unitek). Hydrophobic Transbond XT primer (XT, 3M Unitek) was used as a control. A total of 162 extracted premolars were collected and divided equally into 9 groups of 18 teeth each, and brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive (3M Unitek) under different experimental conditions: (1) control: etch/dry/XT, (2) etch/dry/MIP, (3) etch/dry/MIP/wet (saliva)/MIP, (4) etch/wet/MIP, (5) etch/wet/MIP/wet/MIP, (6) dry/SEP, (7) dry/SEP/wet/SEP, (8) wet/SEP, and (9) wet/SEP/wet/SEP. Shear bond strength of each sample was examined with a testing machine. The results showed that the control group had the highest mean shear bond strength (group 1, 21.3 ± 6.8 MPa), followed by the MIP group in a dry field (group 2, 20.7 ± 5.0 MPa). No significant difference was found between groups 1 and 2. Groups 3 through 9 had similar mean strengths, ranging from 12.7 to 15.0 MPa ( P > .05), which were significantly lower than in groups 1 and 2 ( P < .05). There was no significant difference in bond-failure site among the 9 groups. It was concluded that (1) Transbond XT adhesive with Transbond XT primer and MIP in a dry field yields similar bond strengths, which are greater than all other groups, (2) saliva contamination significantly lowers the bond strength of Transbond MIP, (3) saliva has no effect on the bond strength of Transbond SEP, (4) Transbond XT adhesive with Transbond MIP and SEP might have clinically acceptable bond strengths in either dry or wet fields.

In vitro investigation of indirect bonding with a hydrophilic primer.

The aim of this in vitro investigation was to evaluate bond strength for a custom base indirect bonding technique using a hydrophilic primer on moisture-contaminated tooth surfaces. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to 100 permanent bovine incisors using a light-cured custom base composite adhesive, a chemically cured sealant, and the hydrophilic primer Transbond MIP (3M-Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Five groups (A-E) of 20 teeth each were formed according to the time of contamination (before or after application of the primer) and the type of contaminant (distilled water or saliva): A, control group with no contamination; B, contamination with saliva before application of the primer; C, contamination with water before application of the primer; D, contamination with saliva before and after application of the primer; and E, contamination with water before and after application of the primer. Mean bond strength for the group without contamination (A) was 15.07 +/- 4.14 MPa and was not significantly different from bond strengths for groups B (14.91 +/- 3.99 MPa) and C (16.12 +/- 3.67 MPa), in which contamination occurred before application of the hydrophilic primer. Average bond strength in group D was 11.92 +/- 4.76 MPa. The lowest mean bond strength was measured for group E (9.85 +/- 3.77 MPa) and was significantly lower than for groups A, B, and C. Contamination after primer application resulted in an increased risk of bond failure at clinically relevant levels of stress.