Current adhesives for indirect bracket bonding

Silverman, E; Cohen, Morton

doi:10.1016/0002-9416(74)90159-6

Cited by 23 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Cohesive failure is safer than bracket adhesive failure because of less adherent adhesives on the enamel which requires less time to be removed. The result of the present study (Table 1) showed that the site of failure in the bonded and rebonded groups were mainly cohesive in nature, which was similar to previous observations [11][12][13]. Cohesive failure is preferred than enamel failure because of fewer remnant adhesives on the enamel surface and less damage to the enamel during removal of residual adhesives.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Failure Site and ARI Score of Rebonded Brackets Using No-Mix Adhesive Resins

Anuwongnukroh

Dechkunakorn

Arunakul

et al. 2016

KEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate failure sites and ARI scores of re-bonded brackets after debonding of three no-mix adhesive brands. 120 teeth were divided into 2 groups for bonded and rebounded (60 teeth/group) and 3 subgroups (20 teeth/subgroup) for three no-mix adhesive, System1+, Rely-a-bond, and Unite. Tooth surface and bracket base were inspected by low power light microscope (10X) after debonding. The failure sites were assessed and residual adhesives was recorded using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). The failure sites were expressed in percentage and Chi-square was used to determine significant differences in the ARI scores among groups (p< 0.05). After rebonding brackets, the failure site of no mix adhesive in bonding were changed to cohesive layer in rebonding group except Unite adhesive. ARI scores of all adhesive were changed from score 2 in bonding group to score 3 in rebonding group after debonding bracket. There were significant (p<0.05) differences in the ARI scores between bonded and rebonded groups except Unite and System1+ and between Unite groups. The results showed that the failure site mostly changed to cohesive layer and ARI changed to Score 3 in three no-mix adhesives after debonding in rebonding brackets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Failure Site and ARI Score of Rebonded Brackets Using No-Mix Adhesive Resins

Anuwongnukroh

Dechkunakorn

Arunakul

et al. 2016

KEM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Silverman and Cohen 1 developed the indirect bonding technique (IDB) to enhance the accuracy and efficiency of bracket placement in 1972.Thomas 2 improved this bonding method by adding customized-bracket bases using composite resins for bonding brackets on the patient’s model. Swetha et al 3 found that the bond strengths were increased with Thomas’ method.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Transfer Accuracy of Three Indirect Bonding Trays: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study with 3D Scanned Models

Gündoğ¹,

Pamukçu²,

Pamukçu³

2023

TurkJOrthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The goal of the current study is to compare the transfer accuracy of two different conventional indirect bonding trays with 3D-printed trays. Methods: Twenty-two patients’ upper dental models were duplicated, scanned and brackets were bonded digitally. Different indirect bonding trays (double vacuum formed, transparent silicone and 3D-printed) were prepared according to three groups. These trays were used for the transfer of the brackets to the patients’ models, then models with brackets were scanned. GOM Inspect software was used for the superimposition of virtual bracket setups and models with brackets. A total of 788 brackets and tubes were analyzed. Transfer accuracies were determined according to the clinical limit of 0.5 mm for linear and 2° for angular measurements. Results: 3D-printed trays had significantly lower linear deviation values than other trays for all planes (p<0.05). 3D-printed trays have significantly lower torque and tip deviation values than other groups (p<0.05). Transfer deviations were within the clinically acceptable limit for all transfer trays in horizontal, vertical and transverse planes. Deviation values of the molars were higher than those of the other tooth groups for all trays in the horizontal and vertical planes (p<0.05). Brackets were generally deviated toward the buccal direction in all tray groups. Conclusion: The transfer accuracy of 3D-printed transfer trays was more successful than the double vacuum formed and transparent silicone trays in the indirect bonding technique procedure. Deviations in the molar group were greater than those in the other tooth groups for all transfer trays.

show abstract

“…In the chemically cured method the tooth and the back of the custom resin pad is coated with Maximum Cure sealant. [9]…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of two orthodontic indirect bonding methods- light cure vs chemical cure

Rohmetra¹,

Gupta²,

Ishita³

2020

Int. J. Appl. Dent. Sci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:The study was undertaken to compare two indirect bonding methods, one method used a light cured adhesive system and clear vacuum formed transfer trays and a second method used a chemical cure adhesive system and putty transfer trays Materials and Methods: 191 bondings provided a data base of bond failures for two indirect bonding methods. The initial bond failure rates were compared using Fisher's Exact Test. The long term bond failure rates were compared using actuarial life tables and a Mantel-Haenzel comparison. Results: In initial bond failure the light cured method had a 9% failure rate compared to the chemical cured methods 0.7% failure rate. Long term the light cured method had a 0% failure rate while the chemical cured method had a 9% failure rate. Conclusion:The initial bond was less likely to fail with the chemically cured method but long term the light cured method was had fewer bond failures.

show abstract

Current adhesives for indirect bracket bonding

Cited by 23 publications

References 8 publications

Failure Site and ARI Score of Rebonded Brackets Using No-Mix Adhesive Resins

Failure Site and ARI Score of Rebonded Brackets Using No-Mix Adhesive Resins

Transfer Accuracy of Three Indirect Bonding Trays: An <i>In Vitro</i> Study with 3D Scanned Models

Comparison of two orthodontic indirect bonding methods- light cure vs chemical cure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About