Effect of adhesion boosters on indirect bracket bonding

Abstract

Objective: To determine the influence of two adhesion boosters on shear bond strength and on the bond failure location of indirectly bonded brackets. Materials and Methods: Sixty bovine incisors were randomly divided into three groups (n 5 20), and their buccal faces were etched using 37% phosphoric acid. In group 1 (control), brackets were indirectly bonded using only Sondhi adhesive. In groups 2 and 3, the adhesion boosters Enhance Adhesion Booster and Assure Universal Bonding Resin, respectively, were applied before bonding with Sondhi. Maximum bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine, and the location of bond failure was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). One-way analysis of variance followed by the Tukey test (P , .05) was used to compare the shear bond strength among groups, and the differences in ARI scores were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test (P , .05). The Pearson correlation coefficient was calculated to determine whether there was any correlation between bond strength and ARI scores. Results: The mean shear bond strength in group 3 was significantly higher (P , .01) than in the other groups. Evaluation of the locations of bond failure revealed differences (P , .05) among the three groups. There was a moderate correlation between bond strength and ARI scores within group 3 (r 5 0.5860, P , .01). Conclusion: In vitro shear bond strength was acceptable in all groups. The use of the Assure adhesion booster significantly increased both the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets and the amount of adhesive that remained on the enamel after bracket debonding. (Angle Orthod. 2014;84:171-176.)

Periodontal conditions in orthodontic patients using direct and indirect bracket bonding techniques: A randomized study

“…Although the indirect bonding technique was recommended in the 1970s (Silverman et al, 1972), the topic has sometimes been discussed again in the world literature (Bozelli et al, 2013;Castilla et al, 2014;Ciuffolo et al, 2012;Deahl et al, 2007;Gange, 2000;Gayake et al, 2013;Hodge et al, 2014;Kanashiro et al, 2014;Koo et al, 1999;Miles, 2010;Mohode, 2012; Nichols et al, 2013). At present, it is routinely used in the lingual technique, and eventually in the technique for brackets bonded from the vestibular side, when the professional has the intention to hasten the clinical act of positioning the brackets, thereby reducing chair-time, with this factor being an aspect on which there is unanimity in the studies (Bozelli et al, 2013;Castilla et al, 2014;Ciuffolo et al, 2012).…”

“…The doubt that motivated this study was precisely whether the type of adhesive -with chemical polymerization -used in the indirect technique, would have more chance of causing deleterious effects on the periodontium. This is because, in this type of technique there is no predictability about the flow of the adhesive in its clinical stage (Ciuffolo et al, 2012;Kanashiro et al, 2014;Miles, 2010;Mohode, 2012), due to the lack of access caused by the transfer tray.…”

“…Another factor pointed out as being controversial is the excessive amount of adhesive material left around the brackets with the use of the indirect bonding technique (Gayake et al, 2013;Kanashiro et al, 2014).…”

“…If on the one hand, indirect bonding allows the removal of excess resin during the act of laboratory bonding; on the other hand, it does not allow the predictability of adhesive flow during its clinical stage (Ciuffolo et al, 2012;Kanashiro et al, 2014;Miles, 2010;Mohode, 2012).…”

The Indirect Bonding Technique in Orthodontics—A Narrative Literature Review

“…In 2011, another virtual orthodontic technique was introduced [21]. It should be emphasized that authors performed 3D digital set-up to improve bracket placement.…”