Six-month bracket failure rate evaluation of a self-etching primer

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a self-etching primer (SEP) with a conventional two-step etch and primer [conventional method (CM)]. The chair time required for bonding was also evaluated. Thirty-seven patients (14 males and 23 females) with a mean age of 16 years 5 months were included in the study. Six hundred and seventy-two brackets were bonded by one operator using a split-mouth design, with either SEP (Transbond Plus) or CM (Transbond XT). Bracket failure rates were estimated with respect to bonding procedure, dental arch, type of tooth (incisor, canine, and premolar), and gender. The results were evaluated using the chi-square test. The survival rate of the brackets was estimated with Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions with respect to bonding procedure, dental arch, type of tooth, and patient gender were compared with a log-rank test. Bond failure interface was determined with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). The failure rates were 0.6 per cent for both bonding procedures. The failure and survival rates did not show significant differences between the bonding procedures, upper and lower dental arches, or gender. However, premolar brackets displayed a higher bond failure rate and a lower survival rate than incisor and canine brackets (P < 0.05). The mean bracket bonding time per tooth with SEP was significantly shorter than with CM (P < 0.001). No significant difference was observed for the ARI scores (P > 0.05). The results of this in vivo, randomized, cross-mouth clinical trial demonstrated a high survival rate with Transbond Plus. This finding indicates that SEP can be effectively used for bonding of orthodontic brackets.

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

“…Although self-etching is clinically acceptable, it produces weaker bonds compared to phosphoric acid etching [27][28][29] . The findings of the present study are further corroborated by the results of Elekdag-Turk et al 36) . Those authors compared the clinical performances of self-etching and acid-etching systems over a 6-month period, and reported that the two adhesive systems did not show significant variations in failure and survival rates.…”

A comparative clinical study of the failure rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with two adhesive systems: conventional and self-etching primer (SEP)

“…cant differences between these values, in agreement with most reports in the literature, 9,10,11,12 but different from studies that found greater failure rates for brackets bonded with SEP than for those bonded with conventional systems. 13,15 The fact that numbers and percentages are very close suggests that both the SEP and the conventional systems are equally efficacious.…”

“…8,11 Some authors have reported a failure rate of up to 82% during this time. 10 Other studies confirmed the efficacy of SEP systems during the first 6 months of treatment when compared with conventional systems. 8 After a longer treatment time, the difference between failure rates for the two bonding systems may become imperceptible.…”

“…13 Several authors conducted shorter studies to compare SEP and conventional systems, from 6 to 12 or 18 months. [8][9][10][11][12][13][14] Our follow-up lasted longer, from 36 to 48 months.…”

“…Elekdag-Turk et al, 10 in 2008, compared failure rates between SEP and the conventional adhesive systems. They followed up patients for 6 months and reported that there were no significant differences between the adhesive systems under study and that both had a failure rate of 0.6%.…”