Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces

Pinho, Mónica Morado; Manso, Maria Conceição; Almeida, Ricardo Faría; Martín, Conchita; Carvalho, Ó.; Henriques, Bruno; Silva, Filipe; Ferreira, Afonso Pinhão; Souza, Júlio C. M.

doi:10.3390/ma13225197

Cited by 22 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Reynolds, shear bond strength in the range of 5.9-7.8 Mpa, to resist masticatory force, is clinically favorable and minimizes enamel fracture. Bond strength that is higher than 14 MPa can cause enamel cracks on the tooth surface during debonding [20]. The materials evaluated in the current study presented adequate shear bond strength, with the experimental material having a higher mean value than the average.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Surface Characteristics, Fluoride Release and Bond Strength Evaluation of Four Orthodontic Adhesives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Orthodontic adhesives have similar properties in terms of fluoride release, roughness, shear bond strength or cement debris for specific clinical conditions. Three commercial consecrated orthodontic adhesives (Opal Seal®, Blugloo®, Light Bond®) were compared with an experimental orthodontic material (C1). Brackets were bonded to enamel using a self-etch technique followed by adhesive application and then de-bonded 60 days later. Share bond strength evaluation, scanning electron microscopy, atomic force microscopy and fluoride release analysis were performed. The highest amount of daily and cumulative fluoride release was obtained for the experimental material, while the lowest value was observed for Opal Seal®. The materials evaluated in the current study presented adequate shear bond strength, with the experimental material having a mean value higher than Opal Seal and Blugloo. The atomic force microscopy measurements indicated that the smoothest initial sample is Opal Seal® followed by Light Bond®. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation indicated different aspects of cement debris on the enamel and/or bracket surface, according to the type of adhesive. The experimental material C1 presented adequate properties in terms of shear bond strength, fluoride release, roughness and enamel characteristics after de-bonding, compared to the commercial materials. Under these circumstances, it can be considered for clinical testing.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 70%

Surface Characteristics, Fluoride Release and Bond Strength Evaluation of Four Orthodontic Adhesives

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this regard, it should be noted that the bond strengths measured on polished LDS treated with Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive (9.21 ± 1.80 MPa) were similar to those recorded on enamel by Transbond™ XT Primer/Paste in an earlier investigation using the same experimental setting (9.80 ± 2.28 MPa) [ 46 ]. Transbond™ XT Paste has long been used for orthodontic bonding with clinical success [ 46 , 47 ]. The similarity in bracket retention demonstrated by Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive on polished LDS and by Transbond™ XT Paste on enamel indirectly validates the clinical use of the universal adhesive, enabling the clinician to abandon the use of a potentially toxic conditioner such as HF, eliminating the need to perform a potentially damaging surface mechanical pre-treatment such as sandblasting, and overcoming the necessity to purchase a specific LDS primer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bracket Bonding to All-Ceramic Materials with Universal Adhesives

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The need for bracket bonding to ceramic restorations is increasing. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of universal adhesives on bracket adhesion to polished or glazed lithium disilicate (LDS) and monolithic zirconia (MZ) surfaces. One hundred and twenty brackets (N = 10) were bonded to either polished or glazed LDS (e.max CAD B32, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and MZ (In-Ceram® YZ, VITA, Bad Sackingen, Germany) blocks using three different adhesives combined with Transbond™ XT Paste (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA). Tested universal adhesives were Scotchbond™ Universal Adhesive (SU, 3M St. Paul, MN, USA) and Assure Plus (AP, Reliance, Itasca, IL, USA). Transbond™ XT Primer (XTP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) served as a control adhesive. Bracket bond strength was measured in shear mode (SBS). Failure type was determined by the Modified Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Data were statistically analyzed. On polished LDS, SU yielded bracket SBS significantly superior to those of AP and XTP. On polished MZ, the use of SU and AP significantly enhanced bracket retention as compared with XTP. Low SBS values, below the threshold of clinical acceptability, were reached by all tested adhesives on glazed LDS and MZ specimens. SBS measurements corresponded with failure type observations. Universal adhesives SU and AP could be considered for use on polished LDS and MZ surfaces.

show abstract

“…Recently, new de-bonding techniques were developed, or existing methods were improved, for example, Taha et al proposed the use of a novel bioactive glass via air abrasion [22,24,25].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Dental Surface after De-Bonding Orthodontic Bracket Bonded with a Novel Fluorescent Composite: In Vitro Comparative Study

Farronato

Inchingolo

et al. 2021

Applied Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of a new fluorescent composite can reduce some of the problems related to procedures of de-bonding orthodontic bracket (enamel damage, dentine lesions, and composite residuals). The aim of the presented study was to compare the effect of fluorescent and conventional non-fluorescent composite on dental surface and composite remnants by in vitro de-bonding tests. De-bonding of florescent composite (DFC) and the de-bonding of standard composite (DSC) were performed by operators on an in vitro sample of 48 teeth under UV light (360–370 nm min 20 mW/cm2). Modified ARI (Adhesive Remnant Index), scored under 5.0×/235 magnification, was used for evaluation of dental surface after the procedure, and the duration required for de-bonding was measured. Significant differences in ARI between the two groups were observed (Pearson two-tailed p = 0.006 1.4 ± 0.1 95% C.I.), and the average duration of de-bonding was 38 s (DFC) and 77 s (DSC) per tooth, respectively (Mann–Whitney test p = 0.015; 57.7 ± 19.9 95% C.I.). The use of fluorescent composite could significantly improve the quality of de-bonding by reducing the quantity of composite residuals and visible enamel damage, while reducing time needed for successful procedure performance.

show abstract

Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces

Cited by 22 publications

References 65 publications

Surface Characteristics, Fluoride Release and Bond Strength Evaluation of Four Orthodontic Adhesives

Surface Characteristics, Fluoride Release and Bond Strength Evaluation of Four Orthodontic Adhesives

Bracket Bonding to All-Ceramic Materials with Universal Adhesives

Evaluation of Dental Surface after De-Bonding Orthodontic Bracket Bonded with a Novel Fluorescent Composite: In Vitro Comparative Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About