Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique

Dorminey, Jason C; Dunn, William J.; Taloumis, Louis J.

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(03)00404-9

Cited by 88 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It includes methacrylated phosphoric acid esters, which will both etch and prime the enamel surface before bonding. TSEP has been experimentally tested in several in vitro tests [1][2][3][4][5] and revealed promising adhesive bonding results. 3,4 Although tooth-conserving and time-saving adhesive methods of retaining orthodontic attachments are replacing traditional methods and procedures, a significant caries risk under and in the vicinity of the multibonded appliances is of concern.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…TSEP has been experimentally tested in several in vitro tests [1][2][3][4][5] and revealed promising adhesive bonding results. 3,4 Although tooth-conserving and time-saving adhesive methods of retaining orthodontic attachments are replacing traditional methods and procedures, a significant caries risk under and in the vicinity of the multibonded appliances is of concern. 6,7 According to Arhun et al, 8 investigators in the literature 9,10 were interested in decalcifications and white spots around the brackets, not under the brackets, and they pointed out that although the area around the brackets is critical, the area under the brackets also needs attention.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

Uysal

Ülker

Ramoğlu

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the in vitro microleakage of orthodontic brackets (metal and ceramic) between enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides produced by self-etching primer system with that of conventional acid etching and bonding. Materials and Method: Sixty freshly extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were used in this study. The teeth were separated into four groups of 15 teeth each and received the following treatments: Group 1, 37% phosphoric acid gel ϩ Transbond XT liquid primer ϩ stainless steel bracket; Group 2, Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TSEP) ϩ stainless steel bracket; Group 3, 37% phosphoric acid gel ϩ Transbond XT liquid primer ϩ ceramic bracket; Group 4, TSEP ϩ ceramic bracket. After curing, specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results:The gingival sides in all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed in occlusal sides for both adhesive interfaces. Enamel-adhesive interfaces exhibited more microleakage than did the adhesive-bracket interfaces. Brackets bonded with self-etching primer system showed significantly higher microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface of the gingival side. Conclusions: TSEP causes more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces, which may lead to lower bond strength and/or white-spot lesions.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

Uysal

Ülker

Ramoğlu

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…7,10,17,20 Posiblemente, esto puede estar relacionado con la utilización de dientes bovinos y no de dientes humanos. Previamente, Oesterle y colaboradores analizaron el uso de dientes bovinos en estudios de adhesión, concluyeron que las fuerzas observadas eran menores en comparación a las logradas en dientes humanos.…”

Section: Discussionunclassified

“…[3][4][5][6][7] Así mismo, a pesar de que autores como Kaaden y colaboradores concluyeron que la fuerza adhesiva de los sistemas autograbadores en el esmalte era significativamente menor que en la dentina, 8 la adhesión al tejido adamantino producida por este tipo de materiales ha sido variable principal de estudio en diversas investigaciones.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

“…[9][10][11][12][13][14] Sin embargo, Shono, Arnold y Dorminey y colaboradores han reportado que esta diferencia es no significativa. [15][16][17] Esta situación ha generado gran controversia con respecto a la efectividad clínica que puedan presentar los adhesivos autograbadores de séptima generación, ya que éstos al tener mezclados en un solo frasco dos diferentes componentes: primer y adhesivo, de cierta forma pueden ver comprometido su desempeño en el área clínica.…”

Section: Introductionunclassified

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparación De La Fuerza Adhesiva Y El Tipo De Falla De Dos Sistemas Adhesivos Para Ortodoncia

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of enamel loss by scanning electron microscopy after debonding brackets place with four different adhesives

Rodríguez‐Chávez

Arenas-Alatorre

Flores‐Ruiz

et al. 2020

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The clinically adequate shear bond strengths (SBS) should be from 2.8 to 10 MPa. The aim of this research is to observe tooth enamel loss through a scanning electron microscope (SEM) during the debonding of braces of four adhesive systems. Then, 100 premolars were used in 4 groups of 25 specimens each, for Transbond MIP (G1), Enlight (G2), Stylus (G3), and Transbond Plus SEP (G4). The research was done under the NOM ISO/TS 11405:2015. Gemini 3M were placed under the manufacturer's recommendations. The SBS test was done at 24 hr in an Instron electromechanical universal testing machine at 1 mm/1 min. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured, all of the brackets where examined in the SEM. For the shear bonding strength G1 = 10.09 ± 2.73 MPa, G2 = 9.27 ± 3.99 MPa, G3 = 7.83 ± 4.46 MPa, and G4 = 6.40 ± 2.85 MPa statistically significant differences were found when comparing the four groups (p = .002). In the Tukey post hoc test, G1 versus G4 and G2 versus G4, statistically significant differences were found. For the ARI a value of 1 in 46%, followed by a value of 2 in 38%, a value of 3 in 13% and a value of 0 in 3% of the total samples, finding statistically significant differences (p < .001). In relation to the tooth enamel loss due to SBS, statistically significant differences were found (p = .326). G1 and G4 had not statistically significant differences. Even though our results concur with the appropriate clinical values, we observed tooth enamel loss with Transbond Plus SEP and Stylus.

show abstract

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique

Cited by 88 publications

References 11 publications

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

Comparación De La Fuerza Adhesiva Y El Tipo De Falla De Dos Sistemas Adhesivos Para Ortodoncia

Evaluation of enamel loss by scanning electron microscopy after debonding brackets place with four different adhesives

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About