scholarly journals Effects of ultrasonic instrumentation with different scaler-tip angulations on the shear bond strength and bond failure mode of metallic orthodontic brackets

2014 ◽  
Vol 44 (1) ◽  
pp. 44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulio Alessandri Bonetti ◽  
Serena Incerti Parenti ◽  
Daniela Rit Ippolito ◽  
Maria Rosari Gatto ◽  
Checchi Luigi
2012 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-493 ◽  
Author(s):  
PV Girish ◽  
Uma Dinesh ◽  
CS Ramachandra Bhat ◽  
Pradeep Chandra Shetty

ABSTRACT Aim To evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to ceramic surfaces using different conditioning methods and to assess the site of bond failure after debonding. Materials and methods A total of 70 ceramic surfaces were produced with uniform shape, size and composition. The samples were divided into 7 groups (each of 10 samples). Group 1 was the control group (untreated surface); in group 2 the surface were roughened with a diamond bur; in group 3 the surface were etched with hydrofluoric acid; in group 4 the surfaces were sandblasted; in group 5 the surfaces roughened with bur and silane applied; in group 6 the surfaces were etched with hydrofluoric acid and silane applied and in group 7 the surfaces were sandblasted and silane applied. To all the above groups, metal orthodontic brackets were bonded with light cure adhesive. The brackets were later stored in artificial saliva and incubated at 37°C (24 hours). The samples were then subjected to shear bond strength test using an Instron universal testing machine. The debonded porcelain surfaces were then studied under stereomicroscope to assess site of bond failure. Results Sandblasting the ceramic surface and silane application showed the highest bond strength. Stereomicroscope examination after debonding showed that the bond failure is at bracket-adhesive interface in four groups namely hydrofluoric acid, sandblasting, hydrofluoric acid with silane and sandblasting with silane. Conclusion Sandblasting with silane combination produced the highest shear bond strength, so it is a clinically suitable method for bonding orthodontic metal brackets onto ceramic surface. Clinical relevance Bonding orthodontic brackets to ceramic crowns of patients has been a tough task. In this study, different conditioning methods were used to treat the ceramic surfaces before bonding. The results showed that sandblasting the ceramic surface prior to application of silane produced the highest shear bond strength which is clinically suitable to reduce bond failures. How to cite this article Girish PV, Dinesh U, Bhat CSR, Shetty PC. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets Bonded to Porcelain Surface using Different Surface Conditioning Methods: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2012;13(4):487-493.


Author(s):  
Rita Cardoso ◽  
◽  
Joana Godinho ◽  
Luís Jardim ◽  
◽  
...  

Objectives: To evaluate the influence of the surface treatment and adhesive system on the shear bond strength and the failure mode of orthodontic brackets bonded to polymethylmethacrylate surfaces. Methods: Ninety metal brackets (n=15) were bonded to aged discs of polymethylmethacrylate SR Ivocron subjected to three surface conditions (no treatment; sandblasting with 50-μm aluminum oxide; roughening with a tungsten bur), using two combinations of adhesives (methylmethacrylate monomer + Transbond XT Primer; Scotchbond Universal Adhesive) followed by the composite Transbond XT. In the control group, metal brackets were bonded with Transbond XT to 15 human mandibular incisors. The specimens were thermocycled, stored in distilled water (37ºC, 7 days), and tested in shear, using an Instron universal machine. Failure mode was classified according to the adhesive remnant index using a stereomicroscope. The data were analyzed with an analysis of variance and posthoc tests (p<0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the bracket bond strength to polymethylmethacrylate with different surface treatments (p<0.001). Sandblasting with aluminum oxide was superior to tungsten bur roughening. The adhesive system did not significantly influence the shear bond strength nor the failure mode (p=0.8415). All experimental groups showed lower bond strengths than the control group (p=0.1566). Conclusions: Mechanical surface treatment significantly influenced the bracket’s bond strength to polymethylmethacrylate. Sandblasting with aluminum oxide was the most effective mechanical treatment. The weakest adhesive link was found at the acrylic-adhesive interface. Orthodontic bonding to polymethylmethacrylate was weaker than bonding to enamel, regardless of the surface treatment and the adhesive used.


2012 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-49
Author(s):  
BM Shivalinga ◽  
H Jyothikiran ◽  
Amit Goyal

ABSTRACT Aims To determine the effect of self-etchant pH on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets; to compare the shear bond strengths of brackets bonded with three SEPs and brackets bonded with conventional etch, rinse, bond method and to find the brackets/adhesive failure mode. Materials and methods One hundred and twenty premolar teeth were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into four groups of 30 samples each- Transbond XT conventional etch and bond system (control), Adper SE Plus SEP (3M ESPE) with a pH of 0.9 to 1.0, Transbond Plus SEP (3M Unitek) with a pH of about 1.0 and Clearfil SE Bond SEP (Kuraray America) with a pH of around 2.0. All teeth were bonded with Transbond XT paste (3M Unitek). The teeth were debonded within half an hour after initial bonding by using a universal testing machine. The residual adhesive on each tooth was evaluated. ANOVA was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the three groups, and the Chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the three groups. Results ANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups. Clearfil attained the SBS (6.5 ± 0.6689 MPa) closest to the control group, whereas Adper inspite of being the most aggressive recorded the lowest SBS (5.7 ± 0.5695 MPa). Transbond self-etching primer achieved a mean SBS of 6.1 ± 0.6211 MPa. However, all the three SEPs recorded SBS which was significantly less than that of Transbond conventional etch, rinse and bond system (11.8027 ± 0.8059 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the three groups indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different between the three groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion These findings show that factors other than pH, such as the ability of the bonding adhesive to form a chemical bond to enamel and the strength of the bonding adhesive itself, significantly influence the SBS of orthodontic brackets. How to cite this article Goyal A, Jyothikiran H, Shivalinga BM. Effect of Self-etchant pH on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An in vitro Study. World J Dent 2012;3(1):41-49.


2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 130-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
N Sanjay ◽  
RNG Rajesh ◽  
KS Girish ◽  
Malthesh B Savakkanavar ◽  
S Sreedhara ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Background Prompt-L-Pop is a sixth generation bonding system contains methacrylated phosphoric acid esters that combine an acidic component for etching the enamel and a primer, is an all-in-one adhesive. This study was undertaken to compare the bonding strength of brackets to enamel with traditional bonding technique and the new Prompt-L-Pop system using the same composite resin. Materials and methods In this in vitro experimental study, 60 human premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic treatment were collected. The samples were randomly divided into three groups comprising of 20 teeth in each group. Shear bond strength and ARI scores for the specimens were measured. Comparison was done using one way ANOVA and Chi-square test. Results Fourth generation bonding adhesive system depicted similar bond strength to fifth generation bonding adhesive system. Both fourth and fifth generation exhibited higher shear bond strength as compared to sixth generation bonding adhesive system. Conclusion Fourth and fifth generation exhibited higher shear bond strength as compared to sixth generation bonding adhesive system but the sixth generation has clinically acceptable shear bond strength. Also, it was found that sixth generation leaves less residual adhesive on the tooth after bracket removal. How to cite this article Sreedhara S, Savakkanavar MB, Rajesh RNG, Ankireddy RKR, Sanjay N, Girish KS. Effect of Self-etch Primer-adhesive and Conventional Adhesive Systems on the Shear Bond Strength and Bond Failure of Orthodontic Brackets: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(2):130-134.


2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-27 ◽  
Author(s):  
Blerim Mehmeti ◽  
Jeta Kelmendi ◽  
Donika Iiljazi-Shahiqi ◽  
Bleron Azizi ◽  
Suzana Jakovljevic ◽  
...  

2010 ◽  
Vol 04 (04) ◽  
pp. 367-373 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sevi Burcak Cehreli ◽  
Asli Guzey ◽  
Neslihan Arhun ◽  
Alev Cetinsahin ◽  
Bahtiyar Unver

Objectives: The aim of this in vitro study is to determine (1) shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded with self-etch and total-etch adhesive after ozone treatment (2) bond failure interface using a modified Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).Methods: 52 premolars were randomly assigned into four groups (n=13) and received the following treatments: Group 1: 30 s Ozone (Biozonix, Ozonytron, Vehos Medikal, Ankara, Turkey) application + Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (SEP) (3M) + Transbond XT (3M), Group 2: Transbond Plus SEP + Transbond XT, Group 3: 30 s Ozone application + 37% orthophosphoric acid + Transbond XT Primer (3M) + Transbond XT, Group 4: 37% orthophosphoric acid + Transbond XT Primer + Transbond XT. All samples were stored in deionised water at 37oC for 24 hours. Shear debonding test was performed by applying a vertical force to the base of the bracket at a cross-head speed of 1 mm/min.Results: The mean SBS results were Group 1: 10.48 MPa; Group 2: 8.89 MPa; Group 3: 9.41 MPa; Group 4: 9.82 MPa. One-Way Variance Test revealed that the difference between the groups was not statistically significant (P=0.267). Debonded brackets were examined by an optical microscope at X16 magnification to determine the bond failure interface using a modified ARI. The results were (mean) Group 1: 2.38; Group 2: 1.31; Group 3: 3.00; Group 4: 1.92. Multiple comparisons showed that Groups 1 and 2, 2 and 3, 3 and 4 were statistically different (P=0.014, P<.001 and P=0.025).Conclusions: Ozone treatment prior to bracket bonding does not affect the shear bond strength. (Eur J Dent 2010;4:367-373)


2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 645-650 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Mews ◽  
Matthias Kern ◽  
Robert Ciesielski ◽  
Helge Fischer-Brandies ◽  
Bernd Koos

ABSTRACT Objective:  To examine differences in the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets on differently mineralized enamel surfaces after applying a caries infiltrant or conventional adhesive. Materials and Methods:  A total of 320 bovine incisors were assigned to eight pretreated groups, and the shear force required for debonding was recorded. Residual adhesive was evaluated by light microscopy using the adhesive remnant index. Statistical analysis included Kolmogorov-Smirnov, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and Scheffé tests. Results:  The highest bond strength (18.8 ± 4.4 MPa) was obtained after use of the caries infiltrant. More residual adhesive and fewer enamel defects were observed on infiltrated enamel surfaces. Brackets on demineralized enamel produced multiple enamel defects. Conclusions:  Acceptable bond strengths were obtained with all material combinations. A caries-infiltrant applied before bracket fixation has a protective effect, especially on demineralized enamel.


2007 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-40 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carla Miranda ◽  
Luiz Henrique Maykot Prates ◽  
Ricardo de Souza Vieira ◽  
Maria Cristina Marino Calvo

The aims of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of four adhesive systems applied to primary dentin and enamel and verify, after SBS testing, the failure mode of the adhesive interface. Sixty extracted sound primary molars were selected and crowns were sectioned in a mesial-distal direction. Specimens were randomly assigned into two groups (adhesion to enamel and adhesion to dentin) and then subdivided into four subgroups according to the adhesive system (n=15): Scotchbond Multi-Purpose (SMP) – Single Bond (SB) – Clearfil SE Bond (and Adper Prompt LPop (APL) – SBS tests were performed and the obtained values were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey tests (p&lt;0.05). The failure mode analysis was performed with a Scanning Electron Microscope (XL-30, Philips). SBS mean values on enamel were [MPa (SD)]: SMP – 27.89 (7.49); SB – 23.92 (8.8); CSB – 24.36 (6.69); APL – 25.96 (4.08); and on dentin: SMP – 17.29 (4.25); SB – 18.2 (8.74); CSB – 16.13 (7.14); APL – 6.04 (3.35). The predominant failure mode was cohesive (primarily of the bonding agent). On enamel SBS was statistically similar for all four adhesives. On dentin SBS of APL was lower than the other tested adhesives.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document