Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of New-Generation Adhesive-Coated Bracket Systems In Comparison With Traditional Systems

Yıl 2024, Cilt: 34 Sayı: 4, 244 - 248, 15.10.2024

Eyüp Burak Küçük Ayça Üstdal Güney Gökay Üstdal

https://doi.org/10.17567/currresdentsci.1555935

Öz

Objective: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different traditional orthodontic adhesive systems and newly developed pre-coated adhesive systems.
Methods: A total of 50 human maxillary premolars were bonded with Clarity advanced ceramic brackets using APC™ Flash-Free, APC™ PLUS, Transbond™ XT Light Cure, Opal® Bond™MV and, Blugloo™ adhesives. All samples underwent thermo-cycling. The SBS was determined using a testometric machine. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the adhesive remnant on debonded enamel surface. Differences among the adhesives were tested for statistical significance.
Results: Blugloo™ group had the highest SBS (22.69 ± 9.14 MPa). However, there was no significant difference in mean SBS among the groups (p<0.05). The Flash-free adhesive group had a significantly lower ARI score than Opal® Bond™MV and, Blugloo™ groups (p<0.001).
Conclusion: All experimental groups provided clinical bond strength higher than required. The flash-free adhesive group resulted in lower adhesive remnant, this saves time for the clinician.
Key words: Adhesive-coated bracket systems, shear bond strength, traditional brackets

Anahtar Kelimeler

Adhesive-coated bracket systems, shear bond strength, traditional brackets

Kaynakça

• 1. Ogaard B, Rella G, Arends J. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 1. Lesion development. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94 (1):68–73.
• 2. Sukontapatipark W, El-Agroudi MA, Selliseth NJ, Thunold K, Selvig KA. Bacterial colonization associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: a scanning electron microscopy study. Eur J Orthod. 2001; 23(5): 475–484.
• 3. Razavi M. APC Flash-free adhesive: The game-changer in orthodontic bonding part II. Orthod Perspect Innova. 2013;20:10-12
• 4. Lee M, Kanavakis G. Comparison of shear bond strength and bonding time of a novel flash-free bonding system. Angle Orthod. 2016; 86(2): 265-270.
• 5. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2(3):171-178.
• 6. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod and Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119 (6): 621–624
• 7. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. "A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics." Br J Orthod. 1994; 21(1): 33-43.
• 8. Öztürk F, Ersöz M, Öztürk SA, Hatunoğlu E, Malkoç S. Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):163-169.
• 9. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for laboratory testing of dental restorations. J Dent. 1999;27(2):89-99. 10. Bishara SE, Trulove TS. Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98 (3):263–273. 11. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-174.
• 12. Marc MG, Bazert C, Attal JP. Bond strength of pre-coated flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets. An in vitro comparative study on the second mandibular premolars." Int Orthod. 2018;16 (3): 425-439.
• 13. Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Ansar J, Bhandari R. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: Comparative in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10 (11): ZC64- ZC68.
• 14. Uysal T, Ustdal A, Kurt G. Evaluation of shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod. 2010; 32 (2): 214-218.
• 15. Reddy YG, Sharma R, Singh A, Agrawal V, Agrawal V, Chaturvedi S. The shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets: An in-vitro comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2013;7(7): 1495-1497
• 16. Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Soliman MMA, Warren JJ, Laffoon JF, Ajlouni R. Comparison of bonding time and shear bond strength between a conventional and a new integrated bonding system. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(2): 237-242.
• 17. Zielinski V, Reimann S, Jager A, Bourauel C. Comparison of shear bond strength of plastic and ceramic brackets." J Orofac Orthop. 2014;75 (5): 345-357.
• 18. Vicente A, Bravo LA. Shear bond strength of precoated and uncoated brackets using a self-etching primer: An in vitro study. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77 (3): 524-527.
• 19. Grünheid T, Sudit GN, Larson BE. Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: an in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product. Eur j Orthod. 2014; 37(5): 497-502.
• 20. Foersch M, Rahimi RK, Wehrbein H, Jacobs C. A new flash-free orthodontic adhesive system: A first clinical and stereomicroscopic study." Angle Orthod. 2016;86(2): 260-264.
• 21. Akl R, Ghoubril J, Le Gall M, Shatila R, Philip-Alliez C. Evaluation of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of metal APC™ Flash-Free adhesive system: A comparative in vitro study with APC™ II and uncoated metal brackets. Int Orthod. 2022;20(4):100705