Effect of altering the type of enamel conditioner on the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer adhesive

Bishara, Samir E.; VonWald, Leigh; Laffoon, John F.; Jakobsen, Jane R.

doi:10.1067/mod.2000.104903

Cited by 75 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is an advantage as the cleaning procedures for adhesive left on the tooth after debonding is always accompanied by a certain loss of enamel. 14 However it has been suggested that to avoid enamel fracture, the adhesive failure should occur between the bracket base and the adhesive rather than between the adhesive and the enamel. 1 In our opinion the ideal adhesive should leave the least remanent on the tooth after debonding without producing enamel fractures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bond strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Materials and methods Enhance-L.C. was used with one of the manufacturer's recommended adhesives, Light-Bond, and with a second from another manufacturer, Transbond-XT. One hundred premolars were divided into four groups of 25 premolars: 1)Transbond-XT, 2) Transbond-XT/Enhance-L.C., 3) Light-Bond, 4) Light-Bond/Enhance-L.C. Main outcome measures Shear bond strength was evaluated with a universal test machine and the adhesive remaining after debonding was determined using image analysis equipment. Results Enhance-L.C. did not significantly increase the bond strength of either of the two systems (P > 0.008). However, LightBond/Enhance-L.C. provided a bond strength significantly greater (P < 0.008) than Transbond-XT and Transbond-XT/Enhance-L.C. Light-Bond also left significantly (P < 0.05) less adhesive remaining on the enamel than Transbond-XT, whether or not either of the systems were used with Enhance-L.C. Conclusions The use of Enhance-L.C with Light-Bond is to be recommended whenever extra bond strength is needed.Bracket bond failure is one of the most frustrating ocurrences in orthodontic practice. The consequences include an increase in treatment time, additional costs in both materials and personnel, and additional patient visits.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bond strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter

et al. 2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, a lack of standardization in the methods used for bond strength testing in Orthodontics makes comparison of different studies difficult and often impossible (12). Studies are different in direction of force used in mechanical testing (9), sample storage time before mechanical testing (3,13), cross-head speed (3,8,9,13), tested materials (9,13) and tooth type (3,7,8,10,13). For this reason, the absolute values of these studies cannot be compared.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of etching and light-curing time on the shear bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of etching and light-curing time on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) upon debonding of orthodontic brackets. Sixty-eight bovine permanent incisors were obtained and embedded in acrylic resin. Edgewise metallic brackets were bonded to the teeth with Fuji Ortho LC RMGIC. The specimens were randomly assigned to 4 groups, using the following etching and light-curing times: G1: 10% polyacrylic acid and 40 s (control); G2: 37% phosphoric acid and 40 s; G3: 10% polyacrylic acid and 50 s; and G4: 37% phosphoric acid and 50 s. Shear test was performed at 0.5 mm/min and the ARI was assessed. G2 (3.6 ± 0.98 MPa) presented significantly higher (p<0.05) SBS than G1 (2.76 ± 0.86 MPa) and G4 (2.86 ± 0.68 MPa), and there was no statistically significant difference (p>0.05) between G2 and G3 (2.94 ± 0.67 MPa). ARI presented prevalence of scores 2 and 3 in all groups. RMGIC SBS enhanced with 37% phosphoric acid etching and 40 s light-curing time, but this did not occur when the light-curing time was increased, regardless of the acid used. RMGIC presented prevalence of failures at the adhesive/bracket interface.

show abstract

“…These sealant materials require three different agents: an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin. Although most clinicians accept 37% phosphoric acid as the standard enamel conditioner, some authors argue that acid etching produces an iatrogenic effect that results in enamel surface loss, estimated at between 10 and 30 μm [13][14][15] . Furthermore, the resin tag can penetrate up to 50 μm into the enamel.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This in vitro study compared the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of two systems for bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel. The first system involved a self-etching primer (Beauty Ortho Bond, BO) containing surface pre-reacted glass filler. The second involved a primer applied with phosphoric acid etching (Transbond XT, TX). Ninety-six extracted human premolars were divided into eight groups: Group I (TX/direct bonding), Group II (TX/indirect bonding), Group III (BO/direct bonding), and Group IV (BO/indirect bonding). Groups V-VIII were identical to Groups I-IV, respectively, but were also subjected to 1,500 thermal cycles between 5 and 55°C. ARI was scored by binocular microscopy. SBS was analyzed by three-way ANOVA and the Bonferroni test. ARI was analyzed by the chi-squared test. The BO groups showed lower SBS and ARI results than the TX groups. SBS was significantly influenced by the primer material, bonding technique, and thermal cycling.

show abstract

Effect of altering the type of enamel conditioner on the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer adhesive

Cited by 75 publications

References 24 publications

Bond strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter

Bond strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter

Effect of etching and light-curing time on the shear bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement

Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About