Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer Research Articles

AN IN VITRO COMPARISION OF BOND STRENGTH OF PRECOATED AND UNCOATED BRACKETS USING SELF ETCHING PRIMER

Aim: To test the hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant on the tooth after debonding between precoated and uncoated brackets using a self etching primer.Materials and Methods: Adhesive Pre Coated Plus brackets, Uncoated brackets, Transbond XT adhesive and Transbond Plus self etching primer (TPSEP) were used in this study. The brackets were bonded to intact human premolar teeth. All the samples were divided into two groups --Group 1 (Uncoated brackets + Transbond Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT) & Group 2 (Adhesive Precoated Brackets + Transbond Self Etching Primer). Universal Testing Machine was used for calculating the shear bond strength of all samples. Image analysis equipment was used to measure the adhesive remnant on each tooth after debonding. Scanning Electron Microscope was used for this purpose.Results: Group 1 (Uncoated brackets + Transbond Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT) & Group 2 (Adhesive Precoated Brackets + Transbond Self Etching Primer) had nearly equal mean shear bond strength which is 8.86 +2.14 Mpa for precoated while 9.08 + 2.76 Mpa for the uncoated group. Statistically both the groups have almost same shear bond strength and significant difference was absent. In percentage of adhesive remnant also statistical difference between group 1 & group 2 was absent.Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant on the tooth after debonding between precoated and uncoated brackets using a self etching primer.

Biophysical and Fluoride Release Properties of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Enriched with Bioactive Glasses

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength, microleakage, cytotoxicity, cell migration and fluoride ion release over time from a resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) enriched with bioactive glasses (BAGs) and a nanohybrid restorative polymer resin agent used as adhesion material in the cemented brackets. One hundred and twenty bovine lower incisors were divided into three groups: (Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP)/Transbond XT (TXT), TSEP/ACTIVA, orthophosphoric acid gel/ACTIVA) and brackets were bonded. A bond strength test and microleakage test were applied. A fluoride release test was applied after 60 days for the TXT and ACTIVA group. To evaluate cytotoxicity and cell migration, a cell viability and scratch migration assay were done for each group. p values < 0.05 were considered significant. Regarding bond strength and microleakage test, no significant differences were found between TSEP/TXT and TSEP/ACTIVA. At 6.4 pH, ACTIVA showed a higher degree of fluoride ion release, which increased with acid pH (3.5), with a maximum fluoride secretion at 30 days. MTT assay revealed that TXT reduces the viability of gingival cells with significant differences (p < 0.001) compared to the untreated cells (control group). ACTIVA provides optimal adhesive and microfiltration properties, releases substantial amounts of fluoride ions in both acid and neutral media, and its biocompatibility is greater than that of traditional composite resin adhesive systems.

THE SHEAR BOND STRENGTH OF THE AESTHETIC BRACKETS BY USING SELF ETCHING PRIMERS

Background: Aesthetic brackets have considerably less mechanical undercuts than those on a metal mesh base design, and therefore they might be expected to have a greater bond failure rate if they are used without a silane-coupling agent. Aim: This study was designed to evaluate the effect of using Self etching on the shear bond strength of the Aesthetic brackets. Material and methods: This study was carried out on fivety premolar teeth were collected from orthodontic patients attending out-patient orthodontic clinic, faculty of Dental Medicine, Al-Azhar University who will be treated with premolar extraction. The teeth were cleaned with tap-water, brushed and stored in distilled water with 0.1% thymol until use. The collected teeth were divided into two groups, one of them was used in dry condition and the other was used in contaminated condition. Each group was sub divided into two equal subgroups of teeth with uncoated and pre coated ceramic bracket for testing the shear. Descriptive statistics including the mean; standard deviation; minimum and maximum values for the Shear bond strength (SBS) were calculated for each of the 10 test groups. The results of this study showed that New metal-reinforced orthodontic ceramic brackets (Clarity brackets) presented a clinically acceptable shear bond strength value with Transbond Moisture-insensitive primer and Transbond Plus-self etching primer can be used successfully for bonding clarity ceramic brackets (uncoated and pre coated) under dry and salivary contaminated condition. Conclusion: Pre coated ceramic brackets in contaminated condition presented higher self etching primer than uncoated ceramic brackets.

Shear bond strength of metallic brackets bonded with a new orthodontic composite

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets in different enamel sur faces using the Transbond Plus Color Change composite (TPCC-3M Unitek), and to analyze the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Methods: Seventy-two human premolars were divided into six groups (n = 12), as follows: Group 1(control) - Transbond XT conventional; in Groups 2 to 6, TPCC was used under the following enamel treatment conditions: phosphoric acid and XT-primer; Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP); phosphoric acid only; phosphoric acid, XT-primer and saliva; and TPSEP and saliva, respectively. Twenty-four hours after bonding, the brackets were debonded with an Instron machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, and ARI was evaluated by using a stereoscopic magnifying glass. Results: The mean shear strength values (MPa) for Groups 1 to 6 were 24.6, 18.7, 17.5, 19.7, 17.5 and 14.8, respectively. Data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05). Group 1 had significantly higher shear bond strength values than Groups 3, 5, and 6 (p 0.05). No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were found between Groups 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Conclusions: Bracket bonding using TPCC showed adequate adhesion for clinical use, and the type of enamel preparation had no influence.

Can dentin surfaces be bonded safely with total-etch and self-etch systems?

Abstract Objective: To assess and compare the shear bond strengths (SBSs) of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and dentin surfaces by using total-etching and 3 different self-etching adhesives. Materials and Methods: A total of 160 extracted mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 4 groups. In Group I, the hard tissue was etched with 37% phosphoric acid; in Group II, Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP) system was used; in Group III, Clearfil Tri-S Bond Plus was used; and, in Group IV, AdheSE was used. Each group was divided into 2 subgroups: The enamel surfaces were conditioned in subgroup-A, and the dentin surfaces were conditioned in subgroup-B. The samples were stored in water for 24 h at 37°C and then thermocycled. The SBS in megapascals (MPa) was determined by a shear test with 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed, and failure types were classified with modified adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The data were analyzed with two-way analyses of variance, Tukey′s, and Chi-square tests at the 0.05 level. Results: The mean SBS value of subgroup-A in Group I was significantly higher than the mean values in the other groups (P<0.05). There were no significant differences among the SBS values in the other groups (P>0.05). Significant differences were found in the ARI between subgroup-A in Group I and the other groups (P<0.001). Conclusions: When used on the enamel, the self-etch systems did not have bond strengths as high as that in the conventional method. However, the self-etch systems can be used as successfully as the conventional method on dentin surfaces.

Self-etching primer: the effect of contamination with a mixture of saliva and blood on bonding metallic brackets

PURPOSE: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets bonded with Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP) and Transbond Plus Color Change (TPCC) under contamination with a mixture of saliva and blood. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 42 human premolars were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=21). Group 1 (G1) were bonded under no contamination, and Group 2 (G2) was contaminated with saliva/blood before bonding. Both groups were bonded according to the manufacturer’s instructions and were cleaned with pumice before bonding. The shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed after 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C and after thermocycling. RESULTS: Both groups showed a homogeneous distribution in the Levene’s test (p>0.05). The main shear bond strength value of G1 was 8.89 MPa with a standard deviation of 2.27; the value for G2 was 6.00 MPa with a standard deviation of 2.62 MPa. There was a significant difference between G1 and G2 (t-student test p<0.05). IRA scores indicated that the main value was IRA 0, and no significant difference (α=0.05) was found between the groups. CONCLUSION: Contamination of blood mixed with saliva significantly decreases the shear bond strength, but even so, the performance is clinically acceptable.

Microleakage under Orthodontic Metal Brackets Bonded with Three Different Bonding Techniques with/without Thermocycling

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the microleakage of beneath the orthodontic brackets bonded with 3 different bonding techniques and evaluate the effect of thermocycling. Methods: One hundred and twenty premolars were randomly divided into 6 groups, received the following treatment: group 1: 37% phosphoric acid gel+Unite primer+Unite adhesive, group 2: 37% phosphoric acid gel+ Transbond XT primer+Transbond XT adhesive, group 3: Transbond plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP)+Transbond XT adhesive. Groups 4, 5, and 6 were similar to groups 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Evaluation of microleakage was done following to thermocycling test. After bonding, the specimens were sealed with nail varnish except for 1 mm around the brackets and then stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine. The specimens were sectioned at buccolingual direction in 2 parallel planes and evaluated under a stereomicroscope to determine the amount of microleakage at bracket-adhesive and adhesive-enamel interfaces from gingival and occlusal margins. Results: Microleakage was observed in all groups, and increased significantly after thermocycling at some interfaces of Unite adhesive group and conventional etching+Transbond XT adhesive group, but the increase was not significant in any interface of TSEP group. With or without thermocycling, TSEP displayed more microleakage than other groups. In most groups, microleakage at gingival margin was significantly higher than occlusal margin. Conclusion: Thermocycling and type of bonding technique significantly affect the amount of microleakage.

Clinical evaluation of the failure rates of metallic brackets

Objectives The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the bonding of metallic orthodontic brackets with different adhesive systems. Material and Methods Twenty patients (10.5-15.1 years old) who had sought corrective orthodontic treatment at a University Orthodontic Clinic were evaluated. Brackets were bonded from the right second premolar to the left second premolar in the upper and lower arches using: Orthodontic Concise, conventional Transbond XT, Transbond XT without primer, and Transbond XT associated with Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer (TPSEP). The 4 adhesive systems were used in all patients using a split-mouth design; each adhesive system was used in one quadrant of each dental arch, so that each group of 5 patients received the same bonding sequence. Initial archwires were inserted 1 week after bracket bonding. The number of bracket failures for each adhesive system was quantified over a 6-month period. Results The number of debonded brackets was: 8- Orthodontic Concise, 2- conventional Transbond XT, 9- Transbond XT without primer, and 1- Transbond XT + TPSEP. By using the Kaplan-Meier methods, statistically significant differences were found between the materials (p=0.0198), and the Logrank test identified these differences. Conventional Transbond XT and Transbond XT + TPSEP adhesive systems were statistically superior to Orthodontic Concise and Transbond XT without primer (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the dental arches (upper and lower), between the dental arch sides (right and left), and among the quadrants. Conclusions The largest number of bracket failures occurred with Orthodontic Concise and Transbond XT without primer systems and few bracket failures occurred with conventional Transbond XT and Transbond XT+TPSEP. More bracket failures were observed in the posterior region compared with the anterior region.

Clinical evaluation of the failure rate of metallic brackets bonded with orthodontic composites

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate in vivo the failure rate of metallic brackets bonded with two orthodontic composites. Nineteen patients with ages ranging from 10.5 to 38.7 years needing corrective orthodontic treatment were selected for study. The enamel surfaces from second premolars to second premolars were treated with Transbond Plus-Self Etching Primer (3M Unitek). Next, 380 orthodontic brackets were bonded on maxillary and mandibular teeth, as follows: 190 with Transbond XT composite (3M Unitek) (control) and 190 with Transbond Plus Color Change (3M Unitek) (experimental) in contralateral quadrants. The bonded brackets were light cured for 40 s, and initial alignment archwires were inserted. Bond failure rates were recorded over a six-month period. At the end of the evaluation, six bond failures occurred, three for each composite. Kaplan-Meyer method and log-rank test (Mantel-Cox) was used for statistical analysis, and no statistically significant difference was found between the materials (p=0.999). Both Transbond XT and Transbond Plus Color Change composites had low debonding rates over the study period.

Effect of water contamination on the shear bond strength of five orthodontic adhesives

To evaluate the shear bond strength and site of failure of brackets bonded to dry and wet enamel. 50 teeth were divided into ten groups of 5 teeth each (10 surfaces). In half the groups enamel was kept dry before bonding, and in the other half distilled water was applied to wet the surface after etching. The following groups were established: 1) Acid/Transbond-XT (dry/wet) XT; 2) Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TSEP)/Transbond-XT paste (dry/wet); 3) Concise (dry), Transbond MIP/Concise (wet), 4) FujiOrtho-LC (dry/wet); 5) SmartBond (dry/wet). Brackets were bonded to both buccal and lingual surfaces. Specimens were stored in distilled water (24 hours at 37 degrees C) and thermocycled. Brackets were debonded using a Universal testing machine (cross-head speed 1 mm/min). Failure sites were classified using a stereomicroscope. No significant differences in bond strength were detected between the adhesives under wet and dry conditions except for SmartBond, whose bond strength was significantly lower under dry conditions. For all the adhesives most bond failures were of mixed site location except for Smartbond, which failed at the adhesive-bracket interface. Under wet conditions the bonding capacity of the adhesives tested was similar than under dry conditions, with the exception of SmartBond which improved under wet conditions.

Metallic brackets bonded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements under different enamel conditions.

To assess the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded with either Fuji Ortho or Ortho Glass LC resin-reinforced glass ionomer cements to enamel surfaces under different conditions, namely, enamel without etching, enamel conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid and enamel conditioned with Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (TPSEP). One hundred and five bovine inferior incisors were divided into seven groups (n = 15). In group 1 (control) Transbond XT was used according to the manufacturer's recommendations. In groups 2, 3, and 4 all using Fuji Ortho LC, the brackets were bonded, respectively, to enamel nonetched, enamel etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and enamel etched with TPSEP. In groups 5, 6, and 7, the bonding was performed using Ortho Glass LC under the same enamel conditions observed in the other experimental groups. After 24 hours, shear bond strength tests were performed for all samples at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The results (MPa) showed no statistically significant difference between groups 1, 3, and 4 (P > .05). However, such groups were statistically superior to the others (P < .05). No statistically significant difference was observed between groups 2, 6, and 7 (P > .05). Group 5 showed the lowest shear strength value, which was also statistically inferior to the other groups (P < .05). Regardless of the enamel treatment, Fuji Ortho LC yielded shear strength values superior to those from Ortho Glass LC.

Evaluation of shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of different metallic and ceramic bracket bonding combinations using self-etching primers (SEPs). Eighty freshly extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into four equal groups for bonding with ceramic or metallic brackets as follows: group 1, metallic brackets bonded with conventional acid etching; group 2, metallic brackets bonded with Transbond Plus Self-Etching primer (TPSEP); group 3, ceramic brackets bonded as per group 1; group 4, ceramic brackets bonded as per group 2. The SBS of these brackets was measured and recorded in megapascals (MPa). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were determined after bracket failure. Data were analyzed with the analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi-square tests. The bond strength of group 3 (mean: 36.7 +/- 11.8 MPa) was significantly higher than group 4 (mean: 26.6 +/- 8.9 MPa; P < 0.05), group 1 (mean: 25.5 +/- 5.1 MPa; P < 0.01), and group 2 (mean: 22.9 +/- 7.3 MPa; P < 0.001). No significant differences in debond locations were found among the groups (P > 0.05). Compared with conventional acid etching, SEPs significantly decreased the SBS of ceramic orthodontic brackets.

Shear Bond Strength of Brackets Bonded to Enamel with a Self-Etching Primer

To evaluate bonding efficacy of activated Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP) used at different time points with Transbond XT to bond metallic orthodontic brackets to bovine incisors. The inferior incisors of 210 bovines were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 30). TPSEPs were mixed, activated, and kept activated for 30 (group 30), 21 (group 21), 15 (group 15), 7 (group 7), 3 (group 3), or 1 (group 1) days before bonding, and in one group (group 0) TPSEP was used immediately after mixed. At day zero, incisors in each group were bonded in exactly the same way. After applying TPSEP, brackets were bonded with Transbond XT, according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 hours, shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed for all samples at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, and the Adhesive Remnant Index was scored. There were no significant differences between the SBS of groups 0, 1, 3, 7, and 15 (P > .05) However, those groups had higher SBS (P < .05) compared with groups 21 and 30. No significant difference (P > .05) was observed between groups 21 and 30. Despite the decrease in SBS for groups 21 and 30, bond strength values were still satisfactory. After activation, the TPSEP mix can be stored for a period of 15 days without losing its adhesive properties.

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

To compare the in vitro microleakage of orthodontic brackets (metal and ceramic) between enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides produced by self-etching primer system with that of conventional acid etching and bonding. Sixty freshly extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were used in this study. The teeth were separated into four groups of 15 teeth each and received the following treatments: Group 1, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + stainless steel bracket; Group 2, Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TSEP) + stainless steel bracket; Group 3, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + ceramic bracket; Group 4, TSEP + ceramic bracket. After curing, specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The gingival sides in all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed in occlusal sides for both adhesive interfaces. Enamel-adhesive interfaces exhibited more microleakage than did the adhesive-bracket interfaces. Brackets bonded with self-etching primer system showed significantly higher microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface of the gingival side. TSEP causes more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces, which may lead to lower bond strength and/or white-spot lesions.

The Influence of Er:YAG Laser Conditioning versus Self-Etching Adhesives with Acid Etching on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets after acid etching, laser ablation, self-etching primer application, and combined treatments. One hundred defect-free premolars were randomly assigned to five groups. The teeth received the following treatments: group 1: phosphoric acid + Transbond XT primer; group 2: Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP); group 3: Er:YAG laser ablation + Transbond XT primer; group 4: Er:YAG laser ablation + phosphoric acid + Transbond XT primer; and group 5: Er:YAG laser ablation + TPSEP. Transbond XT Adhesive Paste was used in all groups for bracket bonding. Samples were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 24 h. The shear debonding test was performed at a crosshead speed of 5 mm/min. Failed brackets were examined by a stereomicroscope at 16 x magnification to determine the bond failure interface using a modified adhesive remnant index (ARI). SBS values were compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for ARI scores and pairwise comparisons were done using the Mann-Whitney U test with Bonferroni correction. Mean SBS values (MPa) and standard deviations for the groups were: group 1, 13.18 +/- 3.45; group 2, 13.52 +/- 4.38; group 3, 10.33 +/- 4.74; group 4, 13.00 +/- 3.47; and group 5, 12.46 +/- 6.31. No significant differences were observed in the SBS of all the groups evaluated, but there was a significant difference in ARI scores, with group 3 showing higher ARI scores than groups 1 and 4. Er:YAG laser ablation and self-etching primer application showed similar SBS values as conventional acidetching for bonding brackets.

Shear Bond Strength of Precoated and Uncoated Brackets Using a Self-etching Primer

To test the hypothesis that there are no significant differences in the shear bond strength or the adhesive remaining on the tooth after debonding between precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer. APC Plus precoated brackets and uncoated brackets were bonded with Transbond XT adhesive using the self-etching primer Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP). The brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars and categorized into two groups: (1) TPSEP/Transbond XT and (2) TPSEP/APC Plus. Shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant on each tooth after debonding was quantified with image analysis equipment. Scanning electron microscope (SEM) observations of enamel surfaces treated with TPSEP were also carried out. No significant differences were observed in the shear bond strengths for the two groups evaluated (P < .05). TPSEP/APC Plus left significantly less adhesive on the tooth after debonding than did TPSEP/Transbond XT (P < .05). It was observed that SEM left a porous and potentially retentive surface. There was no significant difference in the bond strength of the two systems tested, but there was a significant difference in the percentage of area of adhesive remaining on the tooth.

Bonding characteristics of a self-etching primer and precoated brackets: an in vitro study

Little is known about the performance of Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP), especially when used with Adhesive Precoated Brackets (APC 1 and APC 2). The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond and rebond strengths and failure sites of APC 1 and APC 2 with a non-coated bracket system [Victory Series (V)] using Transbond XT light-cured adhesive and TPSEP or 37 percent phosphoric acid as the conditioner. The results demonstrated that on dry testing of 120 brackets when applying an occluso-gingival load to produce a shear force at the bracket-tooth interface, there was no statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength (SBS) of APC 1 (68.4 N), APC 2 (74.9 N), and V brackets (75.4 N, control group). There was also no significant difference in bond failure sites of the APC 1 and APC 2 when compared with the non-coated bracket system using Transbond XT light-cured adhesive and TPSEP, with bond failure for all groups occurring mainly at the adhesive-enamel interface. There was a significant difference in the SBS of the V brackets when using TPSEP and 37 percent phosphoric acid as the conditioners. The latter was lower (60.6 N) and the bond failure site changed from the enamel-adhesive interface to the bracket-adhesive interface. The shear rebond strengths of all bracket types were statistically significantly lower (P < 0.05) than their initial SBS (APC 1, APC 2, and V: 35.9, 36.7, and 34.1 N, respectively) and the locus of bond failure altered from the adhesive-enamel interface to the bracket-adhesive interface. A clinical trial using TPSEP as a conditioner would be useful as the time taken to remove the adhesive from the enamel surface may be reduced following debond.