Comparison of the shear bond strength of new and recycled metallic brackets using different adhesive materials. An in vitro study

Year 2023, Volume: 57 Issue: 2, 96 - 102, 31.05.2023

Nicole Ibarra , Mackarena Sáez , Victor Rojas , Rodrigo Oyonarte

https://doi.org/10.26650/eor.20231163180

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate and compare shear bond strength (SBS) of new and recycled metallic brackets bonded to conditioned and reconditioned enamel, using two different adhesive materials.

Material and Method

72 extracted sound human premolars were randomly divided into 6 groups. Transbond XT light cured composite (LCC) and Fuji Ortho LC resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), were used as adhesive materials. In groups 1 and 2 (control), new brackets were bonded to sound premolars using either LCC or RMGI, respectively. In Groups 3 and 4, new brackets were bonded to reconditioned enamel; and in groups 5 and 6, sandblasted recycled brackets were rebonded to reconditioned enamel. After 5.000 thermal cycles between 5ºC and 55ºC, SBS was evaluated and adhesive remnant on the enamel assessed using the ARI index. Statistical analyses included Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA, Fligner-Killeen ANOVA and Tukey tests.

Results

The statistical analysis showed no significant difference in SBS comparing control and experimental groups for either new or recycled brackets (p = 0.848). The SBS was significantly higher in brackets bonded with LCC (15.7 MPa) than RMGI (11.6 MPa) (p = 0.006). Adhesive failure was the most frequent, with the adhesive remnant covering more than 50% of the bracket base.

Conclusion

No significant differences were observed in SBS using either new or recycled brackets, regardless of the dental surface treatment (conditioned or reconditioned). Significantly higher SBS values were obtained with LCC adhesive. Adhesive failure prevails in all groups.

Keywords

Shear bond strength, Metallic brackets, Adhesive materials, Recycled brackets, Thermal cycling

Supporting Institution

Universidad de los Andes

References

• [1] Gange P. The evolution of bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 47:56-63.
• [2] Reicheneder CA, Gedrange T, Lange A, Baumert U, Proff P. Shear and tensile bond strength comparison of various contemporary orthodontic adhesive systems: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135:422-3.
• [3] Ewoldsen N, Demke RS. A review of orthodontic cements and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120:45-8.
• [4] Gupta A, Kallury A, Sahu K. Influence of various factors affecting shear bond strength: A review. J Applied Dent Med Sci. 2017;3:121-132.
• [5] Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171-8.
• [6] Bishara SE, Ostby AW. Bonding and debonding from metal to ceramic: research and its clinical application. Seminars in Orthodontics. 2010;16:24–36.
• [7] Finnema KJ, Ozcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:615-622.e3.
• [8] Bakhadher W, Halawany H, Talic N, Abraham N, Jacob V. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets - a Review of In Vitro Studies. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove). 2015;58:43-8.
• [9] Faltermeier A, Behr M. Effect of bracket base conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009;135:12-3.
• [10] Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinşahin A, Karabulut E. Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod. 2006 Mar;76:314-21.
• [11] Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104:170-9.
• [12] Wendl B, Muchitsch P, Pichelmayer M, Droschl H, Kern W. Comparative bond strength of new and reconditioned brackets and assessment of residual adhesive by light and electron microscopy. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:288-92.
• [13] Read M J F, O’Brien K D. A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98: 259–262.
• [14] Montero M, Vicente A, Alfonso-Hernández N, Jiménez-López M, Bravo-González LA. Comparison of shear bond strength of brackets recycled using micro sandblasting and industrial methods. Angle Orthod. 2015;85:461-7.
• [15] Rüger D, Harzer W, Krisjane Z, Tausche E. Shear bond strength after multiple bracket bonding with or without repeated etching. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:521-7.
• [16] Kilinc D, Sayar G. Comparison of the shear bond strength of treated and untreated brackets on treated and untreated enamel surfaces in rebonding. J Orofac Sci. 2018;10:69.
• [17] Bahnasi FI, Abd-Rahman AN, Abu-Hassan MI. Effects of recycling and bonding agent application on bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013;5:197-202.
• [18] Sung EC, Chan SM, Mito R, Caputo AA. Effect of carbamide peroxide bleaching on the shear bond strength of composite to dental bonding agent enhanced enamel. J Prosthet Dent.1999;82:595-9.
• [19] Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:24-8.
• [20] Sonis AL. Air abrasion of failed bonded metal brackets: a study of shear bond strength and surface characteristics as determined by scanning electron microscopy. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1996;110:96-8.
• [21] Al Maaitah EF, Alomari S, Abu Alhaija ES, Saf AA. The effect of different bracket base cleaning method on shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2013;14:866-70.
• [22] Salama F, Alrejaye H, Aldosari M, Almosa N. Shear bond strength of new and rebonded orthodontic brackets to the enamel surfaces. J Orthod Sci. 2018;7:12.
• [23] Montasser MA, Drummond JL, Evans CA. Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study. Angle Orthod. 2008;78:531-6.
• [24] Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Tavakol P, Tavakol A, Amini N, Lynch E. Effect of multiple debonding sequences on shear bond strength of new stainless steel brackets. J Orthod Sci. 2015; 4: 37–41.
• [25] Chacko PK, Kodoth J, John J, Kumar K. Recycling stainless steel orthodontic brackets with Er:YAG laser - An environmental scanning electron microscope and shear bond strength study. J Orthod Sci. 2013;2:87-94.
• [26] Bishara SE, Laffoon JF, Vonwald L, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121:521-5.
• [27] Movahhed HZ, Ogaard B, Syverud M. An in vitro comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and a composite adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:477-83.
• [28] Summers A, Kao E, Gilmore J, Gunel E, Ngan P. Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126:200-6.
• [29] Ahangar Atashi MH, Sadr Haghighi AH, Nastarin P, Ahangar Atashi S. Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2018;12:56-62.