The effect of blood contamination on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with the use of a new self-etch primer

Abstract Objective: To compare rebonding of orthodontic brackets based on the hypothesis that no difference would be found between the adhesive systems with respect to shear bond strength, mode of failure, and clinical failure rates. Materials and Methods: The three adhesive systems included two self-etch primers (Transbond and M-Bond) and a conventional phosphoric acid etch (Rely-a-Bond). The sample size was 20 premolars for each adhesive system. The shear bond strength was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with the bonding/debonding procedures repeated two times after the first debonding. Bond strength, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure sites were evaluated for each debonding. Statistical analysis consisted of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Scheffè analysis. The clinical portion evaluated 15 patients over a 12-month period. Results: The mean shear bond strengths after the first, second, and third debondings for Rely-a-Bond were 8.4 ± 1.8, 10.3 ± 2.4, and 14.1 ± 3.3 MPa, respectively; for Transbond 11.1 ± 4.6, 13.6 ± 4.5, and 12.9 ± 4.4 MPa, respectively; and for M-Bond 8.7 ± 2.7, 10.4 ± 2.4, and 12.4 ± 3.4 MPa, respectively. After the three debondings the mean shear bond strength increased significantly from the first to the third debonding for Rely-a-Bond and M-bond (P ≤ .001), but did not change for Transbond (P = .199). Conclusions: The original hypothesis is not rejected. The two self-etching primers showing higher or comparable bond strength to the conventional phosphoric etch with less adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after the first debonding. With repeated bonding/debonding, the differences in the bond strength, ARI, and failure site were not significantly different. There was no difference in the clinical performance of the three adhesive systems (P = .667).

Download Full-text

Effect of blood contamination on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets and disinclusion buttons

British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery ◽

10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.06.011 ◽

2011 ◽

Vol 49 (5) ◽

pp. 404-408 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Maria Francesca Sfondrini ◽

Sara Gatti ◽

Andrea Scribante

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Blood Contamination

Download Full-text

Effect of Cyclic Loading on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study

Journal of Dentistry of Tehran University of Medical Sciences ◽

10.18502/jdt.v15i6.328 ◽

2019 ◽

Author(s):

Mohammad Moslem Imani ◽

Farzaneh Aghajani ◽

Nafiseh Momeni ◽

Mohammad Sadegh Ahmad Akhoundi

Keyword(s):

Cyclic Loading ◽

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Bonding System ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Bonding Systems ◽

Self Etch

Objectives: In clinical conditions, orthodontic brackets are exposed to periodic stresses mainly induced by mastication and intraoral forces. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effects of cyclic loading to simulate masticatory forces on shear bond strength (SBS) of metal brackets bonded to teeth using self-etch and total-etch bonding systems. Materials and Methods: Eighty-four caries- and crack-free bovine mandibular incisors were selected and randomly assigned to two groups based on the type of bonding system. After bonding, all samples were thermocycled (500 cycles) followed by cyclic loading of the half of the specimens in each group by applying 40 N load with 2 Hz frequency for 10,000 cycles. The SBS was measured using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score was calculated subsequently. Data were analyzed using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test, two-way ANOVA and Mann-Whitney test. Results: The SBS was 10.09±3.78 MPa and 14.44±6.06 MPa for self-etch and total-etch bonding systems in cyclic loading group, respectively. The SBS was 9.43±5.3 MPa and 11.31±5.42 MPa in self-etch and total-etch groups without cyclic loading, respectively. Cyclic loading did not cause any significant difference in SBS (P>0.05). The ARI scores of the groups were significantly different (P<0.05). Conclusions: The present results demonstrated that low masticatory forces at 10,000 cycles did not have a significant impact on bracket-adhesive SBS; however, they significantly changed the ARI score. Even though the total-etch bonding system yielded higher SBS than the self-etch system, the performance of both was clinically acceptable.

Download Full-text

Comparative evaluation of different prophylaxis pastes on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with Self Etch Primer: An in-vitro study

The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society ◽

10.4103/0301-5742.158631 ◽

2015 ◽

Vol 49 (1) ◽

pp. 32-36

Author(s):

Monika Mahajan ◽

Anil Singla ◽

Sukhraj Singh Saini

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Comparative Evaluation ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Vitro Study ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Self Etch

Download Full-text

Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets

Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics ◽

10.1590/2177-6709.22.1.047-056.oar ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 22 (1) ◽

pp. 47-56 ◽

Cited By ~ 3

Author(s):

Shaza M. Hammad ◽

Noha El-Wassefy ◽

Ahmed Maher ◽

Shafik M. Fawakerji

Keyword(s):

Electron Microscopy ◽

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Testing Machine ◽

Orthodontic Brackets ◽

Homogeneous Distribution ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Silica Dioxide ◽

Bonding Systems ◽

Self Etch

ABSTRACT Objective: To evaluate the effect of silica dioxide (SiO2) nanofillers in different bonding systems on shear bond strength (SBS) and mode of failure of orthodontic brackets at two experimental times. Methods: Ninety-six intact premolars were divided into four groups: A) Conventional acid-etch and primer Transbond XT; B) Transbond Plus self-etch primer; and two self-etch bonding systems reinforced with silica dioxide nanofiller at different concentrations: C) Futurabond DC at 1%; D) Optibond All-in-One at 7%. Each group was allocated into two subgroups (n = 12) according to experimental time (12 and 24 hours). SBS test was performed using a universal testing machine. ARI scores were determined under a stereomicroscope. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and transmission electron microscopy (TEM) were used to determine the size and distribution of nanofillers. One-way ANOVA was used to compare SBS followed by the post-hoc Tukey test. The chi-square test was used to evaluate ARI scores. Results: Mean SBS of Futurabond DC and Optibond All-in-One were significantly lower than conventional system, and there were no significant differences between means SBS obtained with all self-etch bonding systems used in the study. Lower ARI scores were found for Futurabond DC and Optibond All-in-One. There was no significant difference of SBS and ARI obtained at either time points for all bonding systems. Relative homogeneous distribution of the fillers was observed with the bonding systems. Conclusion: Two nanofilled systems revealed the lowest bond strengths, but still clinically acceptable and less adhesive was left on enamel. It is advisable not to load the brackets immediately to the maximum.

Download Full-text