Effect of sandblasting and enamel deproteinization on shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer

Hamdane, Nadine; Kmeid, Roland; Khoury, Elie; Ghoubril, Joseph

doi:10.1016/j.ortho.2017.09.005

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The increased bond strength of orthodontic brackets means less incidence of debonding during the orthodontic treatment phase but also means penetration of resin tags within enamel that will remain within the tooth enamel structure causing discoloration of the enamel [43]. However, the RMGIC also has a chemical part retention provided from the glass-ionomer cement component which was insufficient without the improvement of the mechanical retention part [14,15]. The combination of the chemical and the increased mechanical retentions improved the bond strength without excessively increasing the penetration of resin tags and causing damage or discoloration to the enamel, as confirmed by the adhesive remnant index in a previous study [16].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Still, the results with the conventional acid etch and RMGIC were not satisfying when compared to the acid etch and the composite resin [14]. Sandblasting and enamel deproteinization can improve SBS of the RMGIC [15]. A previous in vitro study, published by the same authors, introduced the V-prep as a mixture of sodium hypochlorite and acid etch to prepare the tooth enamel surface by cleaning the organic layer and enhancing the chemical and mechanical bonding of the RMGIC.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT

Ghoubril,

Abboud

et al. 2023

Coatings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The association of the V-prep and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) has shown to be a suitable alternative for the orthodontic bracket bonding procedure in vitro. The aim of this study was to evaluate over eighteen months the clinical bonding failure and survival rates of the conventional bonding technique using the Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) and the RMGIC Fuji Ortho LC (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) prepared with the V-prep. Therefore, one operator using the straight-wire technique bonded two hundred metallic brackets to upper and lower premolars of twenty-five patients requiring an orthodontic treatment. The randomized trial was a single-blind design in a split-mouth comparison. Each patient was randomly allocated one of the two bonding systems for each premolar on each side of the mouth. The bonding and rebonding techniques were standardized throughout the trial and bond failure was recorded each month for a period of eighteen months. The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan–Meier and log-rank test (p < 0.05). A total of 200 orthodontic brackets were included in the study with a significant lower failure rate of 9.0% for the V-prep and RMGIC compared to 25.0% for the conventional bonding technique (p < 0.05). A higher survival rate was observed for the V-prep and RMGIC (16.36 months) over the conventional bonding technique (13.95 months) (p < 0.05). Lower premolar bonding failure was higher than upper premolar for both bonding techniques. The V-prep followed by RMGIC, with enamel surface protection abilities, can be used as an alternative bonding technique in an orthodontic treatment.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT

Ghoubril,

Abboud

et al. 2023

Coatings

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…9 Otros estudios también han concluido que el uso de NaClO como agente desproteinizante podría mejorar la durabilidad de diferentes tipos de restauraciones en esmalte o dentina por tiempos más prolongados. 10,11 Por otro lado, se ha reportado que el sistema adhesivo OrthoSolo seguido de la resina compuesta Enlight, ambos de la casa comercial ORMCO, pueden ofrecer valores de resistencia al desalojo adecuados para tratamientos ortodóncicos que van de los 9.79 a los 20.83 MPa, 12 mientras que el sistema adhesivo Transbond XT de la casa comercial 3M ofrece valores de adhesión alrededor de 10.23 MPa. 13 Nuestro estudio encontró que el uso de un agente desproteinizante durante 60 segundos previo al grabado ácido aumenta la adhesión en esmalte (p < 0.05).…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

Evaluación de la adhesión de sistemas adhesivos de grabado total en esmalte dental bovino usando un agente desproteinizante: un estudio <i>in vitro</i>

Lang-Salas¹,

Villarreal-Romero²,

Domínguez-Monreal³

et al. 2020

Revista De La Asociación Dental Mexicana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A study by Meyer and Nelson showed that a vertical positioning error of 3 mm on a premolar led to a 15 degree torque variation and a 0.04 mm first-order variation [ 5 ]. The transition from banding to bonding in orthodontics pushed researchers toward improving bonding quality, in order to insure adequate bracket placement, which became a fundamental issue in orthodontics, as TM Graber puts it: “… the best results in the present and in the future will be achieved by those orthodontists who are best at accurate bracket positioning” [ 6 , 7 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background/objectives When the indirect bonding technique was developed in 1972 by Silverman and Cohen, many authors wondered whether this technique would improve bracket positioning accuracy compared to the direct bonding technique. Studies have found little to no difference between them regarding positioning accuracy. Recently, technological advances have improved the indirect method by allowing the user to position the brackets virtually using software applications such as OrthoAnalyzer™. To the best of our knowledge, no studies have compared direct positioning to this new digital indirect technique. Thus, the aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of placement between the two techniques in the maxillary arch using two different bracket types: conventional twin brackets and self-ligating brackets. A secondary objective was to evaluate whether bracket type affected positioning accuracy. Methods A maxillary arch of a patient was scanned by digital impression. Forty resin duplicates of this model were printed and then mounted on a mannequin head, on which 20 practitioners performed direct bonding using the aforementioned brackets. Later on, they performed a virtual indirect bonding of the same case virtually, with the digital impression superimposed to the patient’s CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Afterwards, the direct bonded models were unmounted, scanned, and then superimposed to the indirect models. Differences in height, angulation and mesio-distal position of the brackets were evaluated. Results Regarding height, the differences between direct and indirect methods were not significant. Height difference was significantly greater for self-ligating brackets compared to conventional brackets. Regarding mesio-distal positioning, significant differences were noted for teeth 13 and 15 with self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.019 and p-value = 0.043, respectively). The deviation was also greater for these brackets. Regarding angulation, the difference was significant on tooth 12 when using conventional brackets (p-value = 0.04) and on 12 and 22 when using self-ligating brackets (p-value = 0.09). Conclusion/implications There were no major significant differences between direct and indirect bonding. Differences were significant only on the laterals for of angulation, and on teeth 13 and 15 for mesio-distal centering. The bracket type seems to influence positioning accuracy, since self-ligating brackets had a larger deviation range than conventional brackets.

show abstract

Effect of sandblasting and enamel deproteinization on shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT

Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT

Evaluación de la adhesión de sistemas adhesivos de grabado total en esmalte dental bovino usando un agente desproteinizante: un estudio <i>in vitro</i>

Comparison of the accuracy of bracket positioning between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques in the maxillary arch: a three-dimensional study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About