» Articles » PMID: 36540003

Comparison of Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Onto the Tooth Enamel of 120 Freshly Extracted Adult Bovine Medial Lower Incisors Using 4 Adhesives: A Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Adhesive, a Composite Adhesive, a Liquid Composite Adhesive, And...

Overview
Journal Med Sci Monit
Date 2022 Dec 21
PMID 36540003
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the bond strength of orthodontic brackets onto the tooth enamel of 120 freshly extracted adult bovine medial lower incisors using 4 adhesives: a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive, a composite adhesive, a liquid composite adhesive, and a one-step light-cured adhesive. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study group (120 freshly extracted bovine medial lower incisors) was divided into equal subgroups depending on the type of adhesive used to fix the brackets to the tooth enamel (n=30), and then according to the observation time (n=10). Orthodontic brackets were fixed onto the tooth enamel for 24 hours (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3) using 4 types of adhesives: resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive Fuji Ortho LC, composite adhesive Transbond Plus Light Cure Band, flowable composite adhesive Transbond Supreme Low Viscosity, and a one-step light-cured adhesive GC Ortho Connect. Shear tests and fracture plane analyses were performed. RESULTS Statistically significant differences at time T1 were noted in the comparison of shear stress values when brackets were fixed with GC Ortho Connect adhesive compared to other adhesives (P<0.05), except for the Transbond Plus adhesive (P>0.05). At time T3, significant statistical differences occurred between GC Fuji Ortho LC and the other 3 adhesives (P<0.05). The fracture analysis showed that, regardless of the time function, adhesive-cohesive fractures without damage to the enamel were the most common for all the assessed materials. CONCLUSIONS Of the adhesives evaluated, GC Ortho Connect appears to be the most appropriate choice for bonding orthodontic brackets to the enamel surface.

Citing Articles

Effect of enamel deproteinization with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. An experimental study.

Mas-Lopez A, Robles-Ruiz J, Arriola-Guillen L J Clin Exp Dent. 2024; 16(8):e947-e952.

PMID: 39281798 PMC: 11392437. DOI: 10.4317/jced.61807.


Shear bond strength of a RMGIC for orthodontic bracket bonding to enamel.

Boudrot M, Francois P, Abdel-Gawad S, Attal J, Dantagnan C BDJ Open. 2024; 10(1):1.

PMID: 38167700 PMC: 10762087. DOI: 10.1038/s41405-023-00181-5.

References
1.
Maurya R, Tripathi T, Rai P . New generation of color bonding: a comparative in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res. 2012; 22(5):733-4. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.93472. View

2.
Chow L, Goonewardene M, Cook R, Firth M . Adult orthodontic retreatment: A survey of patient profiles and original treatment failings. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2020; 158(3):371-382. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2019.09.010. View

3.
Retief D . Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974; 1(3):265-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1974.tb01438.x. View

4.
El Mourad A . Assessment of Bonding Effectiveness of Adhesive Materials to Tooth Structure using Bond Strength Test Methods: A Review of Literature. Open Dent J. 2018; 12:664-678. PMC: 6182887. DOI: 10.2174/1745017901814010664. View

5.
Tamer I, Oztas E, Marsan G . Orthodontic Treatment with Clear Aligners and The Scientific Reality Behind Their Marketing: A Literature Review. Turk J Orthod. 2020; 32(4):241-246. PMC: 7018497. DOI: 10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2019.18083. View