Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers

Zeppieri, Irene L; Chung, Chun-Hsi; Mante, Francis K.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00405-0

Cited by 83 publications

(90 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in agreement with the findings of other in vitro studies. [22][23][24][25][26] The high bond strength with the use of self-etch primers has been attributed to nanoretentive interlocking between the enamel crystallites and the resin, potential resin-to-enamel bonding, and chemical bonding. 11,27 After the third debonding, the bond strength was not different among the three adhesive systems.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…High ARI values observed with conventional phosphoric etch systems have been attributed to the improved mechanical union between the composite and enamel. 24,26,29,30 The ARI assessment is subjective and can be affected with the mode of observation; however, previous studies found the system of value and found that interobserver and intraobserver variability was low. 21,30 Scarring of the enamel after resin removal is welldocumented for the different methods of resin removal 31,32 and may partially explain the increase in bond strength and ARI scores that were observed in this study after the second and third debondings.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Montasser

Drummond

Evans

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare rebonding of orthodontic brackets based on the hypothesis that no difference would be found between the adhesive systems with respect to shear bond strength, mode of failure, and clinical failure rates. Materials and Methods: The three adhesive systems included two self-etch primers (Transbond and M-Bond) and a conventional phosphoric acid etch (Rely-a-Bond). The sample size was 20 premolars for each adhesive system. The shear bond strength was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with the bonding/debonding procedures repeated two times after the first debonding. Bond strength, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and failure sites were evaluated for each debonding. Statistical analysis consisted of a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by Scheffè analysis. The clinical portion evaluated 15 patients over a 12-month period. Results: The mean shear bond strengths after the first, second, and third debondings for Relya-Bond were 8.4 Ϯ 1.8, 10.3 Ϯ 2.4, and 14.1 Ϯ 3.3 MPa, respectively; for Transbond 11.1 Ϯ 4.6, 13.6 Ϯ 4.5, and 12.9 Ϯ 4.4 MPa, respectively; and for M-Bond 8.7 Ϯ 2.7, 10.4 Ϯ 2.4, and 12.4 Ϯ 3.4 MPa, respectively. After the three debondings the mean shear bond strength increased significantly from the first to the third debonding for Rely-a-Bond and M-bond (P Յ .001), but did not change for Transbond (P ϭ .199). Conclusions:The original hypothesis is not rejected. The two self-etching primers showing higher or comparable bond strength to the conventional phosphoric etch with less adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after the first debonding. With repeated bonding/debonding, the differences in the bond strength, ARI, and failure site were not significantly different. There was no difference in the clinical performance of the three adhesive systems (P ϭ .667).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Montasser

Drummond

Evans

2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature, however, is not clear on what the minimum bond strength should be. Some authors reported that the needed SBS ranges from 13.0 to 21.0 MPa, 23 whereas others reported a range from 6.0 to 8.0 MPa. 22,24 The mean SBS of all composites tested in this study was greater than the 6.0 to 8.0 MPa range reported by Reynolds and Von Frauhofer 25 and others to be adequate for routine clinical use.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Different Chlorhexidine Formulations on Shear Bond Strengths of Orthodontic Brackets

Çatalbaş

Ercan

Erdemir

et al. 2009

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the hypothesis that the application of different chlorhexidine formulations to the etched enamel will not affect shear bond strength (SBS). Materials and Methods: Forty-four freshly extracted human premolars were collected and stored in distilled water. The teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric and were rinsed and dried. The teeth then were divided into four equal groups. While Group 1 served as a control, Groups 2 to 4 were treated before bonding with a chlorhexidine formulation that included solution (2%), gel (1%), and mouthwash (0.2%). Orthodontic brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Bond strength results were evaluated with the use of one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P Ͻ .05) and post hoc tests. Modes of failures were verified by means of scanning electron microscopy. Results: Although no statistically significant difference was observed between Groups 1 and 4 (P Ͼ .05), both were statistically superior to Groups 2 and 3 (P Ͻ .05). In this in vitro study, the observed measures for Groups 2 and 3 (14.5-10.6 MPa) were lower than those for Groups 1 and 4 (27.3-24.9 MPa), but these values were much higher than those required for clinical use (6-8 MPa). Conclusion:The hypothesis is rejected. The application of chlorhexidine mouth rinse before bonding had no significant effect on the SBS value, and the application of chlorhexidine solution and gel significantly decreased SBS. (Angle Orthod. 2008;79:312-316.)

show abstract

“…2,5 In other studies, shear bond strength trials were conducted 24 hours after bonding. 3,4,11,17 The substrate used in our study was bovine tooth enamel, as in other studies. 4,5,13,16 Bovine teeth are anatomically, histologically and chemically similar to human teeth, although bond strength result shows to be lower than those of human teeth.…”

Section: E5mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…5,6 However, when used in moist environments, its advantages over Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek Dental Products, Monrovia, CA), a conventional adhesive system, remain controversial. 4,15,16 In a dry environment, both have similar bond strength, 4,5,15,17 but Transbond™ MIP may present a significantly higher bond strength than necessary for bonding (18.31 MPa), 13 which may damage the enamel during debonding. Adhesive materials should have shear bond strengths compatible to the clinical needs.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel

Assad-Loss¹,

Tostes²,

Mucha³

2012

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel original articleObjective: To evaluate shear bond strength of 3 adhesive systems (Single Bond, Transbond™ MIP and Transbond™ XT) applied on bovine enamel under saliva contamination condition. Method:One hundred and twenty enamel surfaces of bovine incisors were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) according to the adhesive system used (Transbond™ XT, Transbond™ MIP and Single Bond) with or without saliva contamination. For each adhesive system, there were two groups defined as no contamination group (NC): 37% H 3 PO 4 conditioning for 30 seconds and two layers of adhesive systems; saliva contamination group (SC): After the first adhesive layer application, the examined areas were contaminated with saliva. Samples were mounted appropriately for testing and stored in deionized water at 37 °C for 7 days. Samples were then submitted to shear bond strength trials at a speed of 0.5 mm/min. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated under stereomicroscopy. Twoway analysis of variance and the Tukey test were used to compare mean values (α = 0.05).Results: Groups XT (NC) = 26.29 ± 7.23; MIP (NC) = 24.47 ± 7.52 and SB (NC) = 32.36 ± 4.14 XT (SC) = 19.59 ± 6.76; MIP (SC) = 18.08 ± 6.39 and SB (SC) = 18.18 ± 7.03 MPa. ARI 0 and 1 were the most prevalent scores in all study groups examined. Conclusion:Saliva contamination significantly decreased bond strength of the three adhesive systems examined (p <0.05). However, the comparison of groups with and without saliva contamination did not reveal any significant differences, and, therefore, the three systems may be considered equivalent.

show abstract

Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers

Cited by 83 publications

References 23 publications

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Rebonding of Orthodontic Brackets

Effects of Different Chlorhexidine Formulations on Shear Bond Strengths of Orthodontic Brackets

Influence of saliva contamination on the shear bond strength of adhesives on enamel

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About