The Effect of an Acidic Food-Simulating Environment on the Shear Bond Strength of Self-Ligating Brackets with Different Base Designs

Abstract

Aim. This study aims to evaluate the effect of acidic food simulant and (acetic acid 3%) on the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores of one conventional and three different self-ligating brackets with different base designs. Materials and Methods. Freshly extracted first maxillary premolars (n = 160) were embedded in resin blocks. A conventional stainless steel bracket, Equilibrium 2, and three types of self-ligating brackets, Speed, In-Ovation R, and Damon 3MX, were bonded to teeth and exposed to distilled water (groups 1, 3, 5, and 7) or acetic acid 3% (groups 2, 4, 6, 8) for 12 weeks. SBS and ARI were calculated and statistical analysis was performed with the analysis of variance (SBS) or χ 2 test (ARI) to compare values between the different groups. Results. Equilibrium 2 and In-Ovation R showed a significantly lower SBS in the acidic environment than in distilled water. Significant differences in ARI scores were found for Equilibrium 2 after immersion in an acidic environment, shifting from 0 in distilled water to 2 in an acidic environment. Conclusions. Equilibrium 2 and In-Ovation R brackets showed a significant decrease in SBS after a 12-week immersion in acetic acid 3%, although all groups showed clinically acceptable SBS. Equilibrium 2 showed significant differences in ARI scores when exposed to acetic acid 3%.

Influence of dental erosion on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded with two different adhesive systems: an in vitro study

“…Although some articles report that eroded surfaces present a significant reduced debonding resistance, most studies focused in evaluating the influence of erosive agents in simulated restorative procedures (Casas-Apayco et al 2014) or during orthodontic treatment, i.e., in brackets previously bonded (Oncag et al 2005;Sheibaninia et al 2014). Our results showed that erosion on enamel surface before ceramic bracket placement did not significantly affect bond strength, similar to previous studies performed with metallic brackets (Degrazia et al 2013;Costenoble et al 2016).…”

“…However, the Transcend™ ceramic brackets, used in this study, present also chemical retention, and this, according to Wang et al (1997), may explain our high SBS values. Although increasing the risk of damage tooth enamel during bracket removal, causing problems such as cracks or fractures, no damage was observed, upon microscopic evaluation, in a previous research, even with values over 27 MPa (Sheibaninia et al 2014).…”

Mean Shearing Stroke Frequency of Orthodontic Brackets under Cycling Loading: An In Vitro Study

“…Sheibaninia et al reported that Equilibrium 2 metal brackets showed the statistically significantly highest bonding strength in distilled water compared to self-ligating metal brackets, while a statistically significantly decrease in bonding strength in acetic acid medium [ 47 ]. Similarly, Cozza et al reported that if the values were specified in newton, Victory series and Equilibrium 2 metal brackets showed the highest bonding strength.…”

Effect of two erosive protocols using acidic beverages on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to bovine enamel

“…Reynolds 28 affirmed that a value of 4.9 MPa seems reasonable for clinical success in order to maintain brackets bonded, considering they should bear this level of masticatory and orthodontic stresses without detachment. Sheibaninia et al 29 found values ranging from 11 to 27 MPa for shear bond strength, but without fractures. In the present research, the bond strength values found, after 7 and 30 days, were higher for groups immersed in Coca-Cola™ (14.9 and 13.4 MPa) and lime juice (11.8 and 10.7 MPa) than the values obtained for the control group with artificial saliva (10.5 and 10.1 MPa).…”

“…Both Sajadi et al 16 and Baka et al 31 showed in their results that the most recurrent ARI was the one where the adhesive remained in full or almost completely on the orthodontic attachment mesh. Sheibaninia et al 29 affirm that, when this pattern occurs, it is for lacking a connection between adhesive system and tooth enamel.…”