BackgroundAssure Plus is a recently introduced universal adhesive with the ability to bond to various restorations. This study compared the shear bond strength of brackets bonded to two types of ceramics using conventional bonding agent and Assure Plus. Surface damage caused by debonding was also evaluated.Material and MethodsIn this in vitro study, 40 feldspathic and lithium disilicate ceramic discs were sandblasted, etched with 9.6% hydrofluoric acid and divided into two groups. In group 1, silane was applied and air-dried followed by application of Transbond XT primer, which was light-cured. In group 2, Assure Plus was applied and air-dried. In both groups, maxillary central incisor brackets were bonded. After incubation in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours and 2000 thermal cycles, bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and failure modes were determined. ANOVA and LSD tests were used to compare bond strength values; chi-squared test was used to compare ARI scores.Results Bracket bond to lithium disilicate by Assure Plus was significantly stronger than that to Feldspathic porcelain (P=0.041). Only in the Assure Plus/lithium disilicate group did some adhesive remain on the surface following debonding (40% of samples, P<0.05). Cohesive porcelain fracture had the lowest frequency in the lithium disilicate/Assure Plus group.ConclusionsAssure Plus provided high bond strength between ceramic and brackets and minimized damage to lithium disilicate ceramic during debonding. Assure Plus is recommended for use in orthodontic treatment of adults with ceramic restorations. Key words:Adhesives, ceramics, dental bonding, shear bond strength.

BackgroundThe aim of study was to evaluate the application of casein phosphopeptide-amorphous calcium phosphate (CPP-ACP) and fluoride regarding their effect on the shear bond strength (SBS), bond failure pattern of brackets using the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and assessing the quality of enamel surface using the enamel damage index (EDI).Material and MethodsSixty extracted premolar teeth were randomly divided into four groups regarding pretreatment application of CPP-ACP and fluoride. Brackets were bonded using the conventional method. Specimens were thermocycled for 1000 cycles and were subsequently tested for the SBS in a universal testing machine. After debonding, the teeth were examined under a stereomicroscope to evaluate the ARI. Then, The EDI was assessed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were analyzed using ANOVA and the Chi-square test.ResultsEvaluation of SBS, ARI and EDI scores showed no significant difference among the study groups. However, a correlation was found between the ARI and EDI scores, indicating that with more adhesive remnants on enamel surface, enamel damage was lower.ConclusionsThe use of CPP-ACP and fluoride can be considered a prophylactic application since these agents did not compromise bracket bond strength although they did not reduce iatrogenic damage to the enamel. Key words:CPP-ACP, Enamel damage, SEM, Shear bond strength, ARI.