A laboratory evaluation of the tensile bond strength of some orthodontic bonding resins to enamel

Delport, Anri; Grobler, S.R.

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(88)90290-9

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These results differed from the results of Naidu et al [36] study that found using ICON as preconditioning before bonding orthodontic brackets to sound enamel did not affect ARI scores distribution compared to the control groups using Transbond XT primer and Transbond PSEP. The importance of the site of bond failure was found not to be a reflection of bond strength; therefore, the site of failure did not reflect different bond strengths at different interfaces [44,45]. On the other hand, a variety of factors could affect bond strength including the type of enamel conditioner, acid concentration, length of etching time, composition of the adhesive, bracket base design, bracket material, oral environment, skill of the clinician, and time of light exposure in case of light-cure approach [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Montasser

Taha

2014

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThis paper aimed to study the effect of two enamel protective agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional and self-etching primer (SEP) adhesive systems.MethodsThe two protective agents used were resin infiltrate (ICON) and Clinpro; the two adhesive systems used were self-etching primer system (Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT adhesive) and a conventional adhesive system (37% phosphoric acid etch + Transbond XT primer + Transbond XT adhesive ). Sixty premolars divided into three major groups and six subgroups were included. The shear bond strength was tested 72 h after bracket bonding. Adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) were assessed. Statistical analysis consisted of a one-way ANOVA for the SBS and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney test for the ARI scores.ResultsIn the control group, the mean SBS when using the conventional adhesive was 21.1 ± 7.5 MPa while when using SEP was 20.2 ± 4.0 MPa. When ICON was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 20.2 ± 5.6 MPa while with SEP was 17.6 ± 4.1 MPa. When Clinpro was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 24.3 ± 7.6 MPa while with SEP was 11.2 ± 3.5 MPa. Significant differences in the shear bond strength of the different groups (P = .000) was found as well as in the ARI scores distribution (P = .000).ConclusionThe type of the adhesive system used to bond the orthodontic brackets, either conventional or self-etching primer, influenced the SBS, while the enamel protective material influenced the adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after debonding.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Montasser

Taha

2014

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A prática clínica mostra que é possível obter uma colagem satisfatória com vários materiais, cada qual com a sua técnica 2,3,10,12,15,17 . Com isso, o foco dos pesquisadores mudou, passando da situação de procura incessante por maior resistência a uma situação de manutenção da resistência conseguida, com simplificação do método e consecutiva diminuição no tempo de cadeira 2,3,4,8 .…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

Avaliação da resistência ao cisalhamento do compósito Right-On em diferentes condições de esmalte

Pithon

Bernardes

Ruellas

et al. 2008

Rev. Dent. Press Ortodon. Ortop. Facial

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJETIVO: avaliar a resistência ao cisalhamento da união de braquetes metálicos colados com o compósito Right-On, em diferentes condições de superfície. MATERIAL E MÉTODOS: foram utilizados 45 incisivos inferiores permanentes bovinos divididos em três grupos (n = 15). No grupo 1 (controle), as colagens foram realizadas com Transbond XT seguindo as recomendações do fabricante, ou seja condicionamento com ácido fosfórico a 37%, lavagem, secagem, aplicação de XT primer e colagem propriamente dita. Nos outros dois grupos, os braquetes foram colados com Right-On, sendo que no grupo 2 seguiu-se as instruções do fabricante, ou seja condicionamento com ácido fosfórico a 37%, aplicação do líquido ativador do compósito na superfície condicionada e na base do braquete e posterior inserção do compósito na base do braquete e posicionamento. No grupo 3 a superfície dentária foi condicionada com o ácido-primer Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer e líquido ativador do compósito foi aplicado apenas na base do braquete. Após a colagem, realizou-se o ensaio de cisalhamento de toda amostra à velocidade de 0,5mm por minuto em máquina Instron de ensaios mecânicos. RESULTADOS E CONCLUSÕES: os resultados (MPa) mostraram não haver diferenças estatísticas entre os grupos 1 e 2 (p > 0,05), entretanto estes grupos foram estatisticamente superiores ao grupo 3 (p < 0,05). Os resultados do IRA evidenciaram maior número de fraturas na interface braquete/compósito.

show abstract

“…

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…SEP is a single solution that combines etching and priming stages [8], allowing them to take place at the same time and create the chance for the primer to penetrate the whole etched surface depth [9], achieving good mechanical adhesion [10]. This method has many advantages of decreasing bonding stages, simplifying bonding procedures, shortening bonding time required [11,12], and minimizing the probability of contamination by moisture and saliva [1,13] without affecting brackets bonding strength [14].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Bond Failure Rate of MBT Brackets Bonded with either Self-Etching Primer or Resin Modified Glass Ionomer vs Conventional Method – an in Vivo Study

Dandachli¹

2015

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As capability of the enamel surface to micromechanical adhesion with adhesives is not good enough to provide sufficient bond strength, enamel preparation is considered a necessary step before bonding [1]. With the development of the acid etching by Buonocore, enamel preparation by phosphoric acid is considered the most popular used method among orthodontists. Although this technique provides sufficient bond strength to resist orthodontic and masticatory forces [2], it is a multi-stage method and has many disadvantages, including enamel loss through etching [3], the need to dry the field during bonding [4] and the difficulty in removing the remnant resin after debonding [5].In the attempt to reduce phosphoric acid disadvantages and to simplify bonding procedure, different alternatives have been tested [6]. Selfetching primer SEP as a new system was introduced in order to move away from acid etching AbstractBackground. Self-etching primer and resin modified glass ionomer has been introduced to counter phosphoric etching disadvantages. Objectives. Evaluation of the bond failure rate of MBT stainless steel brackets bonded with either self etching primer SEP or resin modified glass ionomer RMGI in comparison with conventional methods CM. Material and Methods. 46 patients with complete permanent dentition were involved in this study. A total of 920 Gemini MBT ® brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, four adhesives systems were used: self etching primer SEP (Transbond Plus

show abstract

A laboratory evaluation of the tensile bond strength of some orthodontic bonding resins to enamel

Cited by 15 publications

References 14 publications

Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Effect of enamel protective agents on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Avaliação da resistência ao cisalhamento do compósito Right-On em diferentes condições de esmalte

Bond Failure Rate of MBT Brackets Bonded with either Self-Etching Primer or Resin Modified Glass Ionomer vs Conventional Method – an in Vivo Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About