In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets after Enamel Conditioning with Acid Etching and Hydroabrasion

Tepedino, Michele; Potrubacz, Maciej Iancu; Arrizza, Lorenzo; Russo, Manuela; Cavarra, Francesco; Cordaro, Massimo; Chimenti, Claudio

doi:10.3390/dj8040108

Cited by 5 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our research findings indicated that the enamel surface in both the TC and SD groups was nearly returned to its pre-treatment condition following the polishing. The results gave a smooth surface and less time than other burs like SD spiral, which needs to change the spiral and consumes time [ 26 – 28 ]. However, the surface roughness decreased significantly in the DB group, but the surface still had a slightly rough surface with shallow grooves.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system

Ghaleb,

Al-Worafi,

Thawaba

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective This study aimed to evaluate enamel surface integrity and time consumed during residual cement removal after bracket debonding using different adhesive removal burs with and without a dental loupe. Material and Methods Sixty human-extracted premolars were collected, cleaned, mounted, and prepared for orthodontic bracket bonding. Teeth were randomly divided into three main groups (n = 20) based on the adhesive removal method: tungsten carbide system (TC), sof-lex discs system (SD), and diamond system (DB) groups. Then, each group was subdivided into two subgroups (naked eye and magnifying loupe subgroups). The brackets were bonded and then debonded after 24 h, and the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assessed. The adhesive remnants were removed by different systems, and the final polishing was performed by Silicone OneGloss. The enamel surface roughness was evaluated before bracketing (T0), after residual cement removal (T1), and finally after polishing (T2) using surface Mitutoyo SJ-210 profilometry and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) to determine the Enamel Damage Index (EDI) score. The time consumed for adhesive removal was recorded in seconds. Results The Kruskal Wallis test showed a statistically significant difference in roughness values at T1 compared to T2 between subgroups (p < 0.001). When comparing EDI at T1 and T2, the Kruskal–Wallis H-test showed statistically significant differences in all subgroups. The pairwise comparisons revealed that EDI scores showed a statistically significant difference at T1 and T2 between DB vs. TC and SD (p = 0.015) but not between TC vs. SD (p = 1.000), indicating the highest roughness value observed in the DB group. The time for cement removal was significantly shorter in the magnifying loupe group than in the naked eye group and was shortest with the TC group, whereas the time was the longest with the DB group (p < 0.05). Conclusion All three systems were clinically satisfactory for residual orthodontic adhesive removal. However, TC system produced the lowest enamel roughness, while the DB system created the greatest. The polishing step created smoother surfaces regardless of the systems used for resin removal.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system

Ghaleb,

Al-Worafi,

Thawaba

et al. 2024

BMC Oral Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the acid-etching time of tooth enamel had been shortened, it would have positive effects on lower tooth demineralization but not by reducing the bond strength of the two adherents. Obtaining a quality ultrastructural morphology of human teeth enamel will give better opportunities for penetration of adhesive materials (28,29) because the strength of the shear bond between enamel and bracket bases is only one of the components that affects the final outcome in clinical conditions. In addition, the bonding area size (contact of the brackets' bases with the demineralized zone) is also a significant factor in obtaining an optimal bond strength between the two adherents.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of bracket type and etching time on shear bond strength to enamel: An in vitro study

Mitić,

Todorović,

Mitić

et al. 2024

Acta fac medic Naissensis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction/Aim. The length of tooth enamel conditioning time and the size of bracket bases are some the factors influencing the bond strength between the two adherents. The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) between two different types of bonded metal brackets and acid-etched enamel surface in two different times. Material and methods. Forty extracted human premolars were randomly divided into four groups. In groups 1 and 2, metal brackets Topic (Dentaurum, Germany) were bonded after etching with 37% phosphoric acid (Gel, Reliance, USA) for 15 s and 30 s, while in groups 3 and 4, metal brackets Equilibrium mini (Dentaurum, Germany) were bonded after etching for 15 s and 30 s. Brackets were bonded using flowable composite Heliosit Orthodontic (Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein) and light-cured using a LED lamp. The SBS was measured by an electronic dynamometer at a cross-head speed of 5 mm/min. Results. Statistical analysis revealed that SBS is affected by both bracket type (t = 10.62; p < 0.01) and etching time (t = 2.81; p = 0.008). The Equilibrium mini brackets with previous enamel etching for 30 s showed the highest SBS values of 10.8 ± 0.75 MPa, while the Topic brackets with previous enamel etching for 15 s showed the lowest values of 4.85 ± 0.53 MPa. Conclusion. Increasing the etching time of tooth enamel leads to higher values in bond strength, especially when using a bracket with a smaller base.

show abstract

“…In contrast to prosthetic restorations brackets need to bond to the teeth only for a limited time period of approximately 2 years 35 , but on the other hand there must be a reliable adhesion throughout the whole multibracket treatment to avoid prolonged treatment times 36 and undesired tooth movement if teeth are not fixed to the wire. Therefore, including aging regimens into orthodontic SBS testing seems to be of major importance, although this aspect still not considered in many orthodontic SBS studies 1 , 29 , 37 , 38 . Despite of thermal cycling, SBS was tested after 90 days of wet storage at 37 °C.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances brackets are usually bonded to the enamel surface, using the etch and rinse technique and phosphoric acid 1 . According to the literature shear bond strength (SBS) values between enamel and bracket of 5–10 MPa are recommended 2 , 3 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Impact of different pretreatments and attachment materials on shear bond strength between monolithic zirconia restorations and metal brackets

Jungbauer

Proff²,

Edelhoff

et al. 2022

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To investigate the influence of different pretreatment methods, attachment materials and artificial aging on shear bond strength (SBS) between monolithic zirconia and metal brackets. Zirconia substrates were pretreated with silica coated alumina (CoJet) and (1) clearfill ceramic primer plus (CF), (2) RelyX ceramic primer (RXP), (3) Futurabond U (FU). The brackets were bonded with (1) Transbond XT Adhesive (TB), (2) BrackFix Adhesive (BF), (3) bracepaste adhesive (BP). SBS was tested after 24 h, 500 thermal cycles, 90 d at 37 °C with a universal testing machine. SBS values reached from 8.3 to 16.9 MPa. The Weibull moduli ranged between 0.37 (RXP combined with BP after 90 d) and 7.42 (CF combined with TB after 24 h). The pretreatment with FU after 90 d, independent of the attachment material, and RXP with BF resulted in the lowest SBS values 8.3–9.9 MPa, the combination of RXP or CF with TB showed the highest (13.2–16.9 MPa) independent of aging. After FU pretreatment the proportion of ARI 1 and 0 was higher, of ARI 3 lower as after CF and RXP pretreatment. All tested combinations showed sufficiently high SBS values for clinical use. Pretreatment with FU presented the lowest values after 90 days.

show abstract

In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets after Enamel Conditioning with Acid Etching and Hydroabrasion

Cited by 5 publications

References 29 publications

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system

Evaluation of enamel surface integrity after orthodontic bracket debonding: comparison of three different system

The influence of bracket type and etching time on shear bond strength to enamel: An in vitro study

Impact of different pretreatments and attachment materials on shear bond strength between monolithic zirconia restorations and metal brackets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About