The chief aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of three different types of pretreatment solutions (phosphoric acid, self-etching primers, and polyacrylic acid) on enamel surfaced when used in association with one of the five orthodontic adhesive systems. In the same vein, the shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets was also measured to evaluate the influence of bonding procedure. After the enamel surfaces of extracted human maxillary incisors were pretreated with the five adhesive systems, scanning electron microscopy (SEM) was used to observe the effects of pretreatment on enamel. Additionally, the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded with the five adhesives was measured (n＝6). SEM observation revealed different etching patterns on the enamel surface after pretreatment. As for shear bond strength, no statistically significant differences were observed among the five different adhesives (p>0.05). It was found that self-etching primers and polyacrylic acid produced a less aggressive etching pattern than phosphoric acid. Nonetheless, all the five adhesive systems provided acceptable bond strength and attachment of orthodontic brackets.

Objective: To test the hypothesis that there is no difference in the degree of conversion (DC%) of orthodontic composites during the light-curing process with or without the use of a glass-fiber reinforcement. Materials and Methods: Two light-curing orthodontic adhesives, Transbond XT (TB) and Beauty Ortho Bond (BO), were used with woven preimpregnated glass fibers. The degree of monomer conversion was determined for both adhesives in three settings (n ϭ 5 per group): in the first group, the adhesive was cured without a bracket (control); in the second group, the bracket was bonded using adhesive without fiber reinforcement; and in the third group, a layer of glass-fiber net was added between the bracket and resin. The adhesive resin was light cured, and the DC% was determined by Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Results: A two-way analysis of variance revealed significant differences in the DC% (P Ͻ .001) between adhesives and between the fiber-reinforced and nonreinforced groups. When the nonreinforced adhesives were light cured under the brackets, the DC% was significantly lower (TB: 37.0%, SD 3.4; BO: 36.9%, SD 1.9) compared with the control (TB: 54.7%, SD 0.6; BO: 65.9%, SD 0.5). A higher DC% was found when the resin was light cured in the presence of a glass-fiber net (TB: 44.1%, SD 0.3; BO: 55.3%, SD 1.7). Conclusion:The hypothesis is rejected. The degree of monomer conversion of the light-curing adhesive resin under stainless steel bracket can be improved by adding a thin layer of glassfiber-reinforced composite between the bracket and adhesive resin. (Angle Orthod. 2009;79: 546-550.)

The hypothesis is rejected. The degree of monomer conversion of the light-curing adhesive resin under stainless steel bracket can be improved by adding a thin layer of glass-fiber-reinforced composite between the bracket and adhesive resin.