Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer

Abstract

Objective: To comparatively assess the failure rate of adhesive precoated (APC) self-ligating metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques: self-etching primer (SEP) and conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM). Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with complete permanent dentition were included in this study. A total of 1140 APC self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, SEP (Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek) and CM (37% phosphoric acid) were used in alternate quadrants. All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth. The number, site, and date of first-time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment (mean, 22 months). The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (P , .05). The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface. Results: The bond failure rates were 2.97% and 2.18% for the CM and SEP, respectively. No statistically significant difference in failure rates was found between the groups. The bond failure sites were predominantly at the enamel-adhesive interface in both groups. Conclusion: This long-term in vivo study showed that the combined use of SEP and the APC bracket system can be used effectively for bonding brackets after pumicing the enamel surfaces in clinical orthodontics. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:155-160.)

Bond Failure Rate of MBT Brackets Bonded with either Self-Etching Primer or Resin Modified Glass Ionomer vs Conventional Method – an in Vivo Study

“…This may be related to the more prismatic enamel on premolars [42], the inability to provide complete dry field in posterior region [43], and to the more masticatory forces in this region [40]. These findings coincide with preceding studies [26,27,30,31,40].…”

“…This mode of failure is clinically advantageous for both clinician and patient because less adhesive to remove from the enamel is needed which will decrease patient discomfort. These results coincide with those of other studies [30][31][32], whereas Miguel et al and Hegarty and MacFariane [44] have recorded failure at cement-bracket for RMGI and that may be due to using etching before bonding.…”

“…These findings coincide with preceding studies [5,30,31,[38][39][40], whereas Murfitt et al [32] have found the failure rate at males 2.4 times more than at females.…”

“…With regard to the dental arch, no significant differences were found between upper and lower arch in each of the four groups, which coincides with preceding studies [5,30,31,[38][39][40], whereas Lovius et al [41] have found more failures on the mandible with conventional bonding.…”

“…The failure rate for the Transbond Plus (SEP) coincides with the preceding studies. Ozer et al [30] and Cal-Neto et al [31] have found no significant differences in bond failure rate between SEP (2.18%, 6.88%) and Transbond XT (2.97%, 4.78%) respectively. In contrast, Murfitt et al [32] and Ireland et al [33] have found significant differences in failure rate as they recorded failure rate for Transbond Plus (11.2% and 10.99% respectively) more than in our study.…”