<i>In vivo</i>evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial

Mavropoulos, Anestis; Karamouzos, Andreas; Kolokithas, G; Athanasiou, A E

doi:10.1093/ortho/30.2.139

Cited by 40 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is in accordance with the clinical studies conducted by Mavropoulos et al 20 and Pandis et al 21 Nevertheless, in the current investigation tooth type (incisor, canine and premolar) influenced the bond failure and survival rates with canine and premolar teeth demonstrating significantly higher failure rates and lower survival rates. Mavropoulos et al 20 observed that the bracket failure rate for posterior teeth (first and second premolars) was three times higher than the failure rate for anterior teeth (incisors and canine). Murfitt et al 13 reported considerable higher failures for the lower canines in the SEP group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…[5][6][7] It was pointed out that the clinical use of SEPs in enamel-to-resin bonding has to be confirmed by clinical studies. 3 Several in vivo studies were published concerning the bond failure rates with CM and SEP. [8][9][10][11][12][13] In these studies the CM included etching with 37% phosphoric acid (15 or 30 seconds), primer application (Transbond MIP or XT) and bonding with Transbond XT light cure adhesive (20,40, or 60 seconds). SEP (Trans- bond Plus) was applied according to the manufacturer's instructions in these studies [8][9][10][11]13 except in one study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

12-Month Self-Ligating Bracket Failure Rate with a Self-Etching Primer

Elekdağ-Türk

Cakmak

Isci

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective:To compare the clinical performance of a self-etching primer (SEP) with a conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM). Materials and Methods: Study subjects were 39 patients with a mean age of 15 years 7 months. Six hundred and eighty-eight brackets were bonded by one operator with a split-mouth design, using Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer or a conventional two-step etch and primer (Transbond XT). The survival rate of the brackets was estimated by the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions with respect to bonding procedure, dental arch, type of tooth (incisor, canine, and premolar) and patients' gender were compared using the log-rank test. Bond failure interface was determined using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Results: The bond failure rates of SEP and CM were 4.7% and 1.7%, respectively. A significant difference was found between the bonding procedures using the log-rank test (P Ͻ .05). Furthermore, canine and premolar teeth displayed a lower survival rate than incisor teeth (P Ͻ .05). Survival rates did not show significant differences between the upper and lower dental arches and patients' gender (P Ͼ .05). No significant difference was observed for ARI scores (P Ͼ .05). Conclusion: These findings indicate that the SEP (Transbond Plus) can be effectively used to bond orthodontic brackets.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

12-Month Self-Ligating Bracket Failure Rate with a Self-Etching Primer

Elekdağ-Türk

Cakmak

Isci

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bond failure rates below 10% are generally considered clinically acceptable 14 . It is difficult to make a direct comparison between studies due to the variety of techniques, materials, research designs and trial durations 15 …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Six-month bracket failure rate with a flowable composite: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial

Krishnan

Pandian

Rajagopal

2017

Dental Press J. Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

INTRODUCTION: The use of flowable composites as an orthodontic bonding adhesive merits great attention because of their adequate bond strength, ease of clinical handling and reduced number of steps in bonding. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this Randomized Controlled Trial was to comparatively evaluate over a 6-month period the bond failure rate of a flowable composite (Heliosit Orthodontic, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan) and a conventional orthodontic bonding adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek).METHODS: 53 consecutive patients (23 males and 30 females) who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were included in the study. A total of 891 brackets were analyzed, where 444 brackets were bonded using Heliosit Orthodontic and 447 brackets were bonded using Transbond XT. The survival rates of brackets were estimated with the Kaplan-Meier analysis. Bracket survival distributions for bonding adhesives, tooth location and dental arch were compared with the log-rank test.RESULTS: The failure rates of the Transbond XT and the Heliosit Orthodontic groups were 8.1% and 6% respectively. No significant differences in the survival rates were observed between them (p= 0.242). There was no statistically significant difference in the bond failure rates when the clinical performance of the maxillary versus the mandibular arches and the anterior versus the posterior segments were compared.CONCLUSIONS: Both systems had clinically acceptable bond failure rates and are adequate for orthodontic bonding needs.

show abstract

“…No significant difference was found between SEP and CM, while significant differences were found between RMGI and each of SEP and CM. Mavropoulos et al [28] recommended that the accepted clinical bond failure rate is under 10%, so using SEP and CM in brackets bonding is considered clinically acceptable unlike RMGI. These findings can be explained by the difference in the mechanism of adhesion, which is a chemical one with RMGI while its micromechanical with the other groups [29].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Dandachli¹

2015

Dent. Med. Probl.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As capability of the enamel surface to micromechanical adhesion with adhesives is not good enough to provide sufficient bond strength, enamel preparation is considered a necessary step before bonding [1]. With the development of the acid etching by Buonocore, enamel preparation by phosphoric acid is considered the most popular used method among orthodontists. Although this technique provides sufficient bond strength to resist orthodontic and masticatory forces [2], it is a multi-stage method and has many disadvantages, including enamel loss through etching [3], the need to dry the field during bonding [4] and the difficulty in removing the remnant resin after debonding [5].In the attempt to reduce phosphoric acid disadvantages and to simplify bonding procedure, different alternatives have been tested [6]. Selfetching primer SEP as a new system was introduced in order to move away from acid etching AbstractBackground. Self-etching primer and resin modified glass ionomer has been introduced to counter phosphoric etching disadvantages. Objectives. Evaluation of the bond failure rate of MBT stainless steel brackets bonded with either self etching primer SEP or resin modified glass ionomer RMGI in comparison with conventional methods CM. Material and Methods. 46 patients with complete permanent dentition were involved in this study. A total of 920 Gemini MBT ® brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, four adhesives systems were used: self etching primer SEP (Transbond Plus

show abstract

In vivoevaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial

Cited by 40 publications

References 32 publications

12-Month Self-Ligating Bracket Failure Rate with a Self-Etching Primer

12-Month Self-Ligating Bracket Failure Rate with a Self-Etching Primer

Six-month bracket failure rate with a flowable composite: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About