Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Montasser, Mona A.; Drummond, James L.; Roth, John R.; Al-Turki, Lulwa; Evans, Carla A.

doi:10.2319/022707-102.1

Cited by 27 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For ARI to the Concise TM orthodontic (G1) and Transbond TM XT (G3) resins, the results reinforce the research of Derech et al, 5 Montasser et al, 12 and Penido et al 4 who also obtained low scores. On the other hand, our results confront studies which reported the majority of disruptions in the interface composite/ bracket.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index comparing light curing and self-curing composites

Neves

Brandão

Almeida³

et al. 2013

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength of self-curing (Concise TM -3M and Alpha Plast -DFL) and light-curing composites (Transbond TM XT -3M and Natural Ortho -DFL) used in orthodontics bonding, associated to Morelli metal brackets, with further analysis of adhesive remnant index (ARI) and enamel condition in scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methods: Forty human premolars, just extracted and stored in physiologic solution 0.9 % were used. Randomly, these samples were divided in four groups: G1 group, the brackets were bonded with Concise TM -3M composite; in G2 group, Alpha Plast -DFL composite was used; in G3 group, Transbond TM XT -3M was used; in G4 group, Natural Ortho -DFL composite was used. These groups were submitted to shear strength tests in universal testing machine, at 0.5 mm per minute speed. Results: Statistical difference between G3 and G4 groups was recorded, as G4 showing higher strength resistance than G3. In the other hand, there were no statistical differences between G1, G2 and G3 and G1, G2 and G4 groups. ARI analysis showed that there was no statistical difference between the groups, and low scores were recorded among then. The scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis revealed the debonding spots and the enamel surface integrity. Conclusions: Shear bond strength was satisfactory and similar between the composites, however Natural Ortho -DFL revealed best comparing to Transbond TM XT -3M. Keywords: Composite resins. Shear strength. Scanning electron microscopy.How to cite this article: Neves MG, Brandão GAM, Almeida HA, Brandão AMM, Azevedo DR. In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index comparing light-curing and self-curing composites. Dental Press J Orthod. 2013 May-June;18(3):124-9.» The authors report no commercial, proprietary or financial interest in the products or companies described in this article. Objetivo: avaliar in vitro a resistência ao cisalhamento de compósitos autopolimerizáveis (Concise e Alpha Plast) e fotopolimerizáveis (Transbond XT e Natural Ortho) utilizados na colagem de braquetes metálicos da marca Morelli, analisando o índice de adesivo remanescente (ARI) e da integridade da superfície do esmalte por meio de microscopia eletrônica de varredura (MEV). Métodos: foram utilizados 40 pré-molares humanos extraídos. As raízes dos dentes foram incluídas em gesso-pedra especial, no interior de tubos de PVC usados para a confecção dos corpos de prova. Esses corpos de prova foram divididos em quatro grupos: grupo G1, braquetes associados ao compósito Concise; grupo G2, braquetes associados ao compósito Alpha Plast; grupo G3, braquetes associados ao compósito Transbond XT; e grupo G4, braquetes associados ao compósito Natural Ortho. Os grupos foram submetidos ao teste de cisalhamento em máqui-na universal de ensaios, a uma velocidade de 0,5mm por minuto. Resultados: houve diferença estatística entre os grupos G3 e G4, sendo os valores de G4 superiores; no entanto, não foram encontradas diferenças estatisticamente significativa...

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 81%

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index comparing light curing and self-curing composites

Neves

Brandão

Almeida³

et al. 2013

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inferior behavior was observed for Groups G5E and G5D, in which the self-etching adhesive system was used, and which removes a micrometric layer of dental surface [31][32][33]. Greater unobstruction of enamel and dentinal tubule prisms was verified with the phosphoric acid etching process, [34] as was used in the other experimental groups, allowing better flow of the hydrophobic monomer, with more voluminous and deeper tag formation [32][33][34].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Characterization and Evaluation of Bond Strength of Dental Polymer Systems Modified with Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles

Dumont¹,

Menezes-Silva²,

Almeida-Júnior³

et al. 2013

MSCE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study Modifies an adhesive system with hydroxyapatite nanoparticles as load, characterizes it and evaluates the effectiveness of its bond to dental structure. The middle thirds of healthy premolar tooth crowns were obtained, and each crown was sectioned vertically, resulting in two sections. The sections were divided into ten groups (n = 15), in which resin composite restorations were simulated: (G1E and G1D) conventional adhesive system (SAC); (G2E and G2D) SAC modified with HAP; (G3E and G3D) Primer modified with HAP; (G4E and G4D) monocomponent adhesive system; (G5E and G5D) self-etching adhesive system. The specimens were submitted to the microshear test and characterization technique. There was statistically significant difference (Kruskal-Wallis) between the groups (p < 0.01). G3 presented the highest bond strength to enamel (64.40 MPa, ±7.36) and dentin (39.59 MPa, ±21.46). The majority of specimens were found adhesive fractures. Bond strength to enamel and dentin of the primer modified with HAP of SAC showed higher values.

show abstract

“…This could be attributed to the resistance effect that the outer enamel layer acquires from the fluoride content of the Clinpro which may be of significant effect especially when using self-etching primers in bonding due to their more superficial etching effect compared with the etching of the conventionally used phosphoric acid. Previous studies [28-30] with scanning electron microscope (SEM) indicated that although self-etch priming agents have the potential to etch the enamel surface, the etching pattern is less deep compared to the etching pattern of phosphoric acid. A chemical bonding capacity through the interaction between some functional monomers and the calcium of residual hydroxyapatite may contribute favorably to the bonding effectiveness [31-33], but fluoride affects the enamel surface rendering it more resistant to demineralization.…”

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

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Abstract: The results confirm the original hypothesis that differences in adhesive systems are manifested in less aggressive etches and less adhesive left on the enamel surface for the self-etching adhesive systems.

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index comparing light curing and self-curing composites

In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index comparing light curing and self-curing composites

Characterization and Evaluation of Bond Strength of Dental Polymer Systems Modified with Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About