Do we need primer for orthodontic bonding? A randomized controlled trial

Nandhra, Sarabjit Singh; Littlewood, Simon; Houghton, Nadine; Luther, Friedy; Prabhu, Jagadish; Munyombwe, Theresa; Wood, Stephen C.

doi:10.1093/ejo/cju024

Cited by 28 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These results are in line with previous study, which also found significant differences between the groups with and without adhesives 13 . However, a recent study showed that brackets fixed without adhesive presented a debonding rate after 12 months similar to that of brackets fixed with adhesive 15,16 . Other study showed that the penetration of the liquids into narrow capillaries, such as microporosities of etched enamel was influenced by properties of the liquid, such as viscosity and the surface free energy of the capillary wall 17 .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth

Oliveira¹,

Costa²,

Correr³

et al. 2017

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To evaluate, in vitro, the effect of adhesive and bonding materials on the shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic brackets bonded to bovine teeth. Methods: Bovine teeth were embedded with acrylic resin, etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 20 s, rinsed, dried for 20 s and divided into 8 groups (n=20), according to the bonding materials and adhesive: Groups 1 and 5 -Transbond XT; Groups 2 and 6 -Fill Magic; Groups 3 and 7 -Biofix; and, Groups 4 and 8 -Orthocem. One layer of adhesive 3 M Unitek (Group 1), and one layer of Single Bond Universal Adhesive (Groups 2, 3 and 4) were applied and light-cured with LED for 10 s. Brackets were bonded to the buccal surface with four bonding materials and light-cured with LED for 40 s. SBS was carried out after 24 h and thermocycling (7,000 cycles -5°/55 °C). Data were submitted to two way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α=0.05). The Adhesive Remaining Index (ARI) was evaluated at 8×. Results: The adhesive was effective in increasing the SBS for all bonding materials (p<0.05). Significant difference (p<0.05) on the SBS was observed between bonding materials with or without adhesive. The ARI showed a predominance of scores 0 for all groups. Conclusions: The adhesive improved significantly the SBS of the brackets to teeth. Different SBS values occurred among the bonding materials. ARI index showed predominance of score 0 for all groups.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth

Oliveira¹,

Costa²,

Correr³

et al. 2017

Braz. J. Oral Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the enamel-etching technique introduced by Buonore, 1 direct bonding of orthodontic accessories, which used to be welded to metal bands, became possible. 1 Direct bracket bonding to dental enamel has been studied over the years, and evaluation of bonding systems and different types of enamel surface preparations prior to bonding 2 - 5 has been conducted in an attempt to improve and obtain adequate bond strength in Orthodontics. 2 , 3 , 6 - 9 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets

Henkin

Macedo

Santos

et al. 2016

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: There is a great variety of orthodontic brackets in the Brazilian market, and constantly evaluating them is critical for professionals to know their properties, so as to be able to choose which product best suits their clinical practice. Objectives:To evaluate the bond strength and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different brands of metal brackets. Material and Methods:A total of 105 bovine incisors were used, and brackets of different brands were bonded to teeth. Seven different bracket brands were tested (MorelliTM, American OrthodonticsTM, TP OrthodonticsTM, Abzil-3MTM, OrthometricTM, TecnidentTM and UNIDENTM). Twenty-four hours after bonding, shear bond strength test was performed; and after debonding, the ARI was determined by using an optical microscope at a 10-fold increase. Results: Mean shear bond strength values ranged from 3.845 ± 3.997 (MorelliTM) to 9.871 ± 5.106 MPa (TecnidentTM). The majority of the ARI index scores was 0 and 1. Conclusion:Among the evaluated brackets, the one with the lowest mean shear bond strength values was MorelliTM. General evaluation of groups indicated that a greater number of bond failure occurred at the enamel/adhesive interface.

show abstract

“…us, according to Nandhra at al. [31], the results of this investigation may only be attributed to that clinician. Also, due to a clearly visible difference in colour between stainless steel and ceramic brackets, neither the operator nor the patient could have been blinded in terms of the type of brackets used during the treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…e evidence in relation to the patient's gender and bracket survival is ambiguous. Numerous researchers reported no difference in the bracket failure rate between males and females [15,24,27,31,37,41,42,47,48]. On the other hand, Koupis et al [49], Hammad et al [41], and Jung [29] reported a significantly higher failure rate in males than females, whereas Bazagrani et al [32], who examined the bracket failure rate among adolescents, found that detachments of brackets in boys occurred four times more frequently than in girls.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

Ogiński

Kawala

Mikulewicz

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. Materials and Methods. The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly divided into two 10-member groups. Group 1 was treated with Abzil Agile (3M Unitek) stainless steel brackets; group 2 was treated with Radiance (American Orthodontics) monocrystalline ceramic brackets. All the brackets were bonded by the same operator. Over the next 12 months, all bracket failures were recorded with each appointment. The received data were processed statistically using the Mantel–Cox test, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox hazard model. Results. A total of 381 brackets were bonded, 195 of which were metallic brackets and 186 were ceramic ones. In the 12-month observation period, there were 14 metal (7.2%) and 2 ceramic bracket (1.1%) failures. The overall failure rate was 4.2% (n = 16). The majority of failures (14 brackets; 87.5%) occurred during the first 6 months of the experiment, 12 (83%) of which were metal brackets and 2 (100%) were ceramic brackets. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusions. Metal brackets demonstrated significantly higher failure rates than ceramic brackets for both 6- and 12-month observation periods (p<0.05). The 6% difference between the brackets is clinically significant as it corresponds to one additional failure within 12 months.

show abstract

Do we need primer for orthodontic bonding? A randomized controlled trial

Abstract: Study was not registered on external databases.

Cited by 28 publications

References 35 publications

Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth

Influence of adhesive and bonding material on the bond strength of bracket to bovine tooth

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets

A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About