A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives.

Sudhir Sharma, Pradeep Tandon, Amit Nagar, Gyan P Singh, Alka Singh, Vinay K Chugh
Author Information
  1. Sudhir Sharma: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, CSM Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  2. Pradeep Tandon: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, CSM Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  3. Amit Nagar: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, CSM Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  4. Gyan P Singh: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, CSM University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  5. Alka Singh: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, CSM Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.
  6. Vinay K Chugh: Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, CSM Medical University, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study is to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel (SS) orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eighty newly extracted premolars were bonded to 0.022 SS brackets (Ormco, Scafati, Italy) and equally divided into four groups based on adhesive used: (1) Rely-a-Bond (self-cure adhesive, Reliance Orthodontic Product, Inc., Illinois, USA), (2) Transbond XT (light-cure adhesive, 3M Unitek, CA, USA), (3) Transbond Plus (sixth generation self-etch primer, 3M Unitek, CA, USA) with Transbond XT (4) Xeno V (seventh generation self-etch primer, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) with Xeno Ortho (light-cure adhesive, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) adhesive. Brackets were debonded with a universal testing machine (Model No. 3382 Instron Corp., Canton, Mass, USA). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recordedIn addition, the conditioned enamel surfaces were observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).
RESULTS: Transbond XT (15.49 MPa) attained the highest bond strength. Self-etching adhesives (Xeno V, 13.51 MPa; Transbond Plus, 11.57 MPa) showed clinically acceptable SBS values and almost clean enamel surface after debonding. The analysis of variance (F = 11.85, P < 0.0001) and Chi-square (χ(2) = 18.16, P < 0.05) tests revealed significant differences among groups. The ARI score of 3 (i.e., All adhesives left on the tooth) to be the most prevalent in Transbond XT (40%), followed by Rely-a-Bond (30%), Transbond Plus with Transbond XT (15%), and Xeno V with Xeno Ortho (10%). Under SEM, enamel surfaces after debonding of the brackets appeared porous when an acid-etching process was performed on the surfaces of Rely-a-Bond and Transbond XT, whereas with self-etching primers enamel presented smooth and almost clean surfaces (Transbond Plus and Xeno V group).
CONCLUSION: All adhesives yielded SBS values higher than the recommended bond strength (5.9-7-8 MPa), Seventh generation self-etching primer Xeno V with Xeno Ortho showed clinically acceptable SBS and the least amount of residual adhesive left on the enamel surface after debonding.

Keywords

References

Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Apr;137(4):528-33 [PMID: 20362914]
Acta Odontol Scand. 2014 Aug;72(6):413-7 [PMID: 24325608]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009 Sep;136(3):425-30 [PMID: 19732677]
Angle Orthod. 2007 Mar;77(2):337-41 [PMID: 17319771]
Eur J Orthod. 2010 Oct;32(5):567-70 [PMID: 20164128]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Feb;131(2):160.e11-5 [PMID: 17276853]
Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):610-7 [PMID: 21447779]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Sep;122(3):274-6 [PMID: 12226608]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):709-16 [PMID: 15592220]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):717-24 [PMID: 15592221]
Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):333-40 [PMID: 6231863]
Angle Orthod. 2000 Oct;70(5):352-6 [PMID: 11036994]
Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1101-4 [PMID: 18947293]
Angle Orthod. 2001 Apr;71(2):141-8 [PMID: 11302591]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Sep;114(3):243-7 [PMID: 9743128]
Dent Mater. 2001 Sep;17(5):430-44 [PMID: 11445211]
Angle Orthod. 2003 Feb;73(1):56-63 [PMID: 12607856]
Aust Orthod J. 2011 May;27(1):28-32 [PMID: 21696111]
J Am Dent Assoc. 1983 May;106(5):634-7 [PMID: 6575084]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):621-4 [PMID: 11395706]
Angle Orthod. 2006 Jul;76(4):694-9 [PMID: 16808579]
Prog Orthod. 2012 May;13(1):49-56 [PMID: 22583587]
J Clin Orthod. 1995 Mar;29(3):184-7 [PMID: 8617851]
J Dent Res. 1956 Jun;35(3):360-9 [PMID: 13332138]
Am J Orthod. 1965 Dec;51(12):901-12 [PMID: 5214895]
Angle Orthod. 2004 Apr;74(2):251-8 [PMID: 15132453]
J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53 [PMID: 13271655]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Feb;97(2):121-5 [PMID: 2137284]
Am J Orthod. 1980 Mar;77(3):307-19 [PMID: 6987879]
Angle Orthod. 2005 Jan;75(1):109-13 [PMID: 15747825]
Br J Orthod. 1979 Oct;6(4):207-8 [PMID: 398715]
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Feb;131(2):253-62 [PMID: 17276868]

Word Cloud

Similar Articles

Cited By