Effects of Surface Preparation with Sodium Hypochlorite on Shear Bond Strength and Residual Adhesive of Orthodontic Brackets on Primary and Permanent Teeth

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the effects of surface preparation with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) on bracket shear bond strength and amount of residual adhesive on primary and permanent teeth. Materials and Methods: 24 permanent premolars, 12 in each group (groups I and III), and 24 primary molars, 12 in each group (groups II and IV) were included. In group I and II, 37% phosphoric acid was applied to the tooth surfaces, without using any other agent. In Group III and IV, 5.25% NaOCl was first applied. Following washing and drying, surface roughening was performed with phosphoric acid. The shear bond strengths (SBS) of the brackets bonded to the tooth surfaces was measured. After debonding, the base of each bracket was examined for adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in SBS values between primary and permanent teeth with and without preparation with NaOCl(P>0.05). Mean SBS(18.55±14.98 MPa) was higher in permanent premolars subjected to surface deproteinization with NaOCl (group III) when compared with other groups, but the difference was not significant. There was no significant difference in ARI scores between the groups. Conclusions: The bond strength of orthodontic brackets or the distribution of ARI scores were similar between groups with and without NaOCl pretreatment. Hence, it can be concluded that conventional bonding procedures applied without any additional preparation to primary teeth are sufficient and the debonding of brackets didn’t cause any harm to enamel surfaces.

Keywords

• Adhesive remnant index
• Shear bond strength
• Surface preparation

References

1. 1. Bishara SE, Justus R, Graber TM. Proceedings of the workshop discussions on early treatment. Held by the College of Diplomates of the American Board of Orthodontics in Quebec City, Canada on July 13-17,1997. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113:5-6.
2. 2. McKeown HF, Sandler J. The two by four appliance: a versatile appliance. Dent Update. 2001;28:496-500.
3. 3. Tal E, Kupietzky A. Orthodontic alignment of permanent incisors following previous trauma of a primary tooth. Pediatr Dent. 2000;22:71-72.
4. 4. Laverty DP, Fairbrother K and Addison O (2018) The current evidence on retaining or prosthodontically replacing retained deciduous teeth in the adult hypodontia patient: A systematic review. Eur J Prosthodont Restor Dent. 2018;26: 2–15.
5. 5. Rajagopal R, Padmanabhan S, Gnanamani J. A comparison of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of conventional, moisture-insensitive, and self-etching primers in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:264-268.
6. 6. Sorel O, Alam RE, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122:260-266.
7. 7. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Boehme A, Jost-Brinkmann PG. Effect of light-tip distance on the shear bond strengths of composite resin. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:386-391.
8. 8. Evans LJ, Peters C, Flickinger C, Taloumis L, Dunn W. A comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets using various light sources, light guides, and cure times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;121:510-515.

9. 9. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005;84(2):118-132.
10. 10. Simonsen RJ. Pit and fissure sealant: review of the literature. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(5):393-414.
11. 11. Gwinnett AJ. The ultrastructure of the "prismless" enamel of deciduous teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 1966;11(11):1109-1116.
12. 12. Gwinnett AJ. The ultrastructure of the "prismless" enamel of permanent human teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 1967;12(3):381-388.
13. 13. Ercan E, Özekinci T, Atakul F, Gül K. Antibacterial activity of 2% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite in infected root canal: in vivo study. J Endod. 2004;30(2):84-87.
14. 14. Grandini S, Balleri P, Ferrari M. Evaluation of Glyde File Prep in combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant. J Endod 2002;28(4):300-303.
15. 15. Elnafar AAS, Alam MK, Hassan R, Purmal K. Enamel surface preparations and shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets: a review. Int Med J. 2015;22:194–198.
16. 16. Endo T, Ozoe R, Shinkai K, Shimomura J, Katoh Y, Shimooka S. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to deciduous and permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:198-202.
17. 17. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;85:333–340.
18. 18. Roper O, Raun JJ. Persistens av primere taender. Tandlaegebladet. 1972;76:732-740.
19. 19. Dachi SF, Howell FV. A survey of 3874 routine full mouth radiographs. A study of retained roots and teeth. Oral Surg. 1961;14:916-924.
20. 20. Mamopoulou A, Hagg U, Schröder U, Hansen K. Agenesis of second premolars. Spontaneous space closure after extraction therapy: a 4-year follow-up. Eur J Orthod. 1996;18:589-600.
21. 21. Nordquist I, Lennartsson B, Paulander J. Primary teeth in adults – a pilot study. Swed Dent J. 2005;29(1):27-34.
22. 22. Santos LL. Treatment planning in the presence of congenitally absent second premolars: a review of the literatüre. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;27:13-18.
23. 23. Sletten DW, Smith BM, Southard KA, Casko JS, Southard TE. Retained deciduous mandibular molars in adults: A radiographic study of long-term changes. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:625-30.
24. 24. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:71-78.
25. 25. Ergas RP, Hondrum SO, Mathieu GP, Koonce JD. In vitro evaluation of an adhesive monomer as a bonding agent for orthodontic brackets to primary teeth and nickel-chromium ion crowns. Pediatr Dent. 1995;17:204-206.
26. 26. Espinosa R, Valencia R, Uribe M, Ceja I, Cruz J, Saadia M. Resin replica in enamel deproteinization and its effect on acid etching. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2010;35(1):47-51.
27. 27. Hobson RS, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Booth TA. Acid-etch patterns on the buccal surface of human permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 2002;47(5):407-412.
28. 28. Panchal S, Ansari A, Jain AK, Garg Y. Effects of different deproteinizing agents on topographic features of enamel and shear bond strength-An in vitro study. J Orthod Sci. 2019;8:17.
29. 29. Justus R, Cubero T, Ondarza R, Morales F. A new technique with sodium hypochlorite to increase bracket shear bond strength of fluoride-releasing resin-modified glass ionomer cements: comparing shear bond strength of two adhesive systems with enamel surface deproteinization before etching. Semin Orthod. 2010;16:66–75.
30. 30. Elnafar AAS, Alam MK, Hasan R. The impact of surface preparation on shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. J Orthod. 2014;41(3):201-207.
31. 31. Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:773–776.
32. 32. Cehreli SB, Polat-Ozsoy O, Sar C, Cubukcu HE, Cehreli ZC. A comparative study of qualitative and quantitative methods for the assessment of adhesive remnant after bracket debonding. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:188–192.
33. 33. Abu Alhaija ES, Irshaid SM, Alwahadni AM. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to deciduous teeth with different etching times. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2012;13:203–208.
34. 34. Pereira TBJ, Jansen WC, Pithon MM, Souki BQ, Tanaka OM, Oliveira DD. Effects of enamel deproteinization on bracket bonding with conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Eur J Orthod. 2013;35:442–446.