Shear bond strength of three diferent bonding systems for orthodontic brackets

  • Luís Filipe Siu Lon
  • Luegya Amorim Henriques Knop
  • Ricardo Lima Shintcovsk
  • Odilon Guariza Filho
  • Dirceu Barnabé Raveli

Abstract

Aim: The objective of this study was to compare theefficiencies of different adhesive systems used to bondorthodontic brackets as well as the fracture pattern during debonding on bovine teeth. Methods: The sample included 45 specimens assigned to 3 groups according to the adhesive system applied: Group I: Transbond XT (3M Unitek®, Monrovia/CA - USA), Group II: Orthocem (FGM® Joinville/ SC-BR), and Group III: Orthobond (Morelli®, Sorocaba/SP - BR). For this purpose, metal brackets were bonded to bovine teeth following the instructions from each manufacturer. The specimens were subjected to a shear test to assess bond strength (BS). Finally, after debonding, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was estimated. Results: The average shear strength for a tooth bonded using the adhesive system Transbond XT was 16.39 MPa, while it was 18.08 Mpa for Orthocem and 7.28 Mpa for Orthobond; The Tukeytest revealed no statistically significant differences betweengroups I and II (p < 0.01) and group III differed statistically from groups I and II. Conclusion: In conclusion, both adhesive systems Transbond XT and Orthocem attained higher bond strength values than Orthobond; the fracture pattern was similar for all adhesive systems applied.

References

1. Busato MCA, Busato PMR, Dotto DV, Pedrotti S, Gasparello, CR. Evaluation of shear bond strength of brackets bonded with different orthodontic resins. Rev Clin Ortodon Dental Press. 2013 Apr-May;12(2):94-9. Portuguese.
2. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1965 Dec;51(12):901-12.
3. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171-8.
4. Sorel O, El-Alam R, Chagnedy F, Gathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil and laser structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2002 Sep;122(3):260-6.
5. Chung CH, Friedman SD, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of rebounded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 Sep;122(3):282-7.
6. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008 Nov;78(6):1105-9. doi: 10.2319/013008-51.1.
7. Sant’Anna EF, Monnerat ME, Chevitarese O, Stuani MB. Bonding brackets to porcelain in vitro study. Braz Dent J. 2002;13(3):191-6.
8. Tavares SW, Consani S, Nouer DF, Magnani MB, Nouer PR, Martins LM. Shear bond strength of new and recycled brackets to enamel. Braz Dent J. 2006;17(1):44-8.
9. Meehan PM, Foley TF, Mamandras AH. A comparison of the shear bond strengths of two glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthd Dentofacial Orthop. 1999 Feb;115(2):125-32.
10. Teixeira CM, Roya RR, Oliveira MT. Influence of variation on polymerization time in the shear bond strength for different cements to orthodontic brackets. Rev Bras Odontol. 2012 Jul/Dez;69(2):220-3. Portuguese.
11. Scribante A, Sfondrini MF, Fraticelli D, Daina P, Tamagnone A, Gandini, P. The influence of no-primer adhesives and anchor pylons bracket bases on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Biomed Res Int. 2013;2013:315023. doi: 10.1155/2013/315023.
12. Oliveira BLS, Costa, AR, Correr AB, Crepaldi MV, Correr-Sobrinho L, Santos JCB. Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth. Braz J Oral Sci. 2017 Jul/Sep;16(3):1-7. e17033.
13. Pithon MM, Santos RL, Oliveira MV, Sant’anna EF, Ruellas ACO. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of the Orthobond composite under different conditions. RGO 2008 Oct/Dez;56(4):405-10. Portuguese.
14. Vilar RV, Souza, NF, Cal-Neto JP, Galvão M, Sampaio-Filho H, Mendes Ade M. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded with two light-curing orthodontic adhesives. J Adhes Dent. 2009 Aug;11(4):259-62.
15. Pithon MM, Santos RL, Oliveira MV, Sant’anna EF, Ruellas ACO. Evaluation of the shear bond strength of two composites bonded to conditioned surface with self-etching primer. Dental Press J Orthod 2011 Ar/Apr;16(2):94-9. doi: 10.1590/S2176-94512011000200012. Portuguese.
16. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, De Angelis M, Scribante A, Klersy C. Effect of water and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with conventional, hydrophilic, and self- etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jun;123(6):633-40.
17. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):333-40.
18. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Elanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Nov;114(5):514-9.
19. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surface. J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53.
20. Costa AR, Correr AB, Puppin-Rontani RM, Vedovello SA, Valdrighi HC, Correr-Sobrinho L, et al. Effect of bonding material, etching time and silane on the bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets to ceramic. Braz Dent J. 2012 Jul-Aug;23(3):223-7. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000300007.
21. MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998 Mar;113(3):276-81.
Published
2018-08-18
How to Cite
LON, Luís Filipe Siu et al. Shear bond strength of three diferent bonding systems for orthodontic brackets. Brazilian Journal of Oral Sciences, [S.l.], p. e18138, aug. 2018. ISSN 1677-3225. Available at: <https://www.fop.unicamp.br/bjos/index.php/bjos/article/view/1340>. Date accessed: 15 july 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v17i0.8652883.
Section
Original Research

Most read articles by the same author(s)