Volume 2, Issue 4 (10-2017)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2017, 2(4): 20-32 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Khosravani fard B, Fetrati A, Asadi E. Comparison between self-etching and conventional primers in repeated bracket bonding. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2017; 2 (4) :20-32
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-184-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-184-en.html
1- Associate Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch of Tehran,
2- Dentist
3- Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch of Tehran, ,elmiraasadi@yahoo.com
2- Dentist
3- Assistant professor, Department of Orthodontics, Dental Branch of Tehran, ,
Abstract: (4151 Views)
Background and Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the effect of repeated bonding by self-etching primers (SEPs) and a conventional phosphoric acid-etchant on shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and enamel morphology at different debonding time points.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 120 premolars were randomly divided into six groups of 20. In the first three groups, the brackets were bonded by Transbond XT, Transbond Plus, and Beauty Ortho Bond, and were debonded after 30 minutes. Adhesive remnants were removed from the enamel surface by a tungsten carbide bur. Rebonding was done with new brackets as described. The remaining three groups were debonded after aging. The SBS, ARI, and enamel surface morphology were evaluated. The SBS data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ARI scores were compared by using Mann-U-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: The SBS of Transbond XT in the first debonding was significantly higher than that of Transbond Plus. Transbond Plus showed a higher SBS than Beauty Ortho Bond. In the second debonding, the SBS values of Transbond XT and Transbond Plus were not significantly different, but their SBS values were significantly higher than that of Beauty Ortho Bond. SEPs showed a higher bond strength in the second bonding compared to the first bonding. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed more porosity in the enamel surface before the second bonding compared to the first bonding. The SBS of Beauty Ortho Bond significantly decreased after aging, and SEM images showed a gap at the resin-enamel interface.
Conclusion: SEPs are recommended for secondary bonding in the clinical setting due to a decreased chair time, less damage to enamel, and an adequate bond strength.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 120 premolars were randomly divided into six groups of 20. In the first three groups, the brackets were bonded by Transbond XT, Transbond Plus, and Beauty Ortho Bond, and were debonded after 30 minutes. Adhesive remnants were removed from the enamel surface by a tungsten carbide bur. Rebonding was done with new brackets as described. The remaining three groups were debonded after aging. The SBS, ARI, and enamel surface morphology were evaluated. The SBS data were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The ARI scores were compared by using Mann-U-Whitney and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
Results: The SBS of Transbond XT in the first debonding was significantly higher than that of Transbond Plus. Transbond Plus showed a higher SBS than Beauty Ortho Bond. In the second debonding, the SBS values of Transbond XT and Transbond Plus were not significantly different, but their SBS values were significantly higher than that of Beauty Ortho Bond. SEPs showed a higher bond strength in the second bonding compared to the first bonding. Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) showed more porosity in the enamel surface before the second bonding compared to the first bonding. The SBS of Beauty Ortho Bond significantly decreased after aging, and SEM images showed a gap at the resin-enamel interface.
Conclusion: SEPs are recommended for secondary bonding in the clinical setting due to a decreased chair time, less damage to enamel, and an adequate bond strength.
Type of Study: Original article |
References
1. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):621-4.
2. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, De Angelis M, Scribante A, Klersy C. Effect of water and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with conventional, hydrophilic, and self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jun;123(6):633-40.
3. Wickwire NA, Rentz D. Enamel pretreatment: a critical variable in direct bonding systems. Am J Orthod. 1973;64:499-512.
4. Fleming PS, Johal A, Pandis N. Self-etch primers and conventional acid-etch technique for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Jul;142(1):83-94.
5. Fitzpatrick DA, Way DC. The effects of wear, acid etching and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod. 1977 Dec;72(6):671-81.
6. Chu CH, Ou KL, Dong DR, Huang HM, Tsai HH, Wang WN. Orthodontic bonding with self-etching primer and self-adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Jun;33(3): 276-281.
7. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955 Dec;34(6):849-53.
8. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI. Effect of self-etching primers on bond strength--are they reliable? Angle Orthod. 2003 Feb;73(1):64-70.
9. lijima M, Ito S, Yuasa T, Muguruma T, Saito T, Mizoguchi I. Bond strength comparison and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of three orthodontic bonding systems. Dent Mater J. 2008 May;27(3):392-9.
10. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):717-24.
11. Cehreli ZC, Kecik D, Kocadereli I. Effect of self-etching primer and adhesive formulations on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 May;127(5):573-9.
12. dos Santos JE, Quiocab J, Loguercioc AD, Reisc A. Six-month bracket survival with a self-etch adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(5):863-868.
13. Nicolas AI, Vicente A, Luis LA. The in vitro effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength with different enamel conditioning procedures. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):291-6.
14. Montasser MA, Drummond JL, Evans CA. Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study. Angle Orthod. 2008 May;78(3):531-6.
15. Bishara SE, Vonwald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2000 Dec;70(6):435-41.
16. Yuasa T, Iijima M, Ito S, Muguruma T, Saito T, Mizoguchi I. Effects of long-term storage and thermocycling on bond strength of two self-etching primer adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Jun;32(3):285-90.
17. Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S, Isci D. Effects of self-etching primer on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets at different debond times. Angle Orthod. 2007 Jan;77(1):108-12.
18. Faltermeier A, Behr M, Müssig D. A comparative evaluation of bracket bonding with 1-, 2-, and 3-component adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Aug;132(2):144.e1-5.
19. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984 Apr;85(4):333-40.
20. Legler LR, Retief DH, Bradley EL. Effects of phosphoric acid concentration and etch duration on enamel depth of etch: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Aug;98(2):154-60.
21. Zentner A, Duschner H. Structural changes of acid etched enamel examined under confocal laser scanning microscope. J Orofac Orthop. 1996 Aug;57(4):202-9.
22. Endo T, Ozae R, Shinkai K, Aoyagi M, Kurokawa H, Katoh Y, et al. Shear bond strength of brackets rebonded with a fluoride-releasing and -recharging adhesive system. Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):564-70.
23. Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Laboratory evaluation of a self-etching primer for orthodontic bonding. Eur J Orthod. 2003Aug;25(4):411-5
24. Grubisa HS, Heo G, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. An evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths achieved with self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Aug;126(2):213-9.
25. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Hotta M, Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of a new fluoride-releasing orthodontic adhesive. Dent Mater J. 2007 Jan;26(1):45-51.
26. Pandis N, Eliades T. A comparative in vivo assessment of the long-term failure rate
of 2 self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005 Jul;128(1):96-8.
27. Rüger D, Harzer W, Krisjane Z, Tausche E. Shear bond strength after multiple bracket bonding with or without repeated etching. Eur J Orthod. 2011 Oct;33(5):521-7.
28. Grunheid T, Larson BE. Repeated bracket bonding: Conventional or self-etching primer? J World Fed Orthod. 2014 Sep;3(3):102-5.
29. Bishara SE1, Laffoon JF, Vonwald L, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002 May;121(5):521-5.
30. Brudevold F. A study of the phosphate solubility of the human enamel surface. J Dent Res. 1948 Jun;27(3):320-9.
31. Gwinnett AJ. The ultrastructure of the "prismless" enamel of permanent teeth. Arch Oral Biol. 1967 Mar;12(3):381-6.
32. Di Hipólito V, de Goes MF, Carrilho MR, Chan DC, Daronch M, Sinhoreti MA. SEM evaluation of contemporary self-etching primers applied to ground and unground enamel. J Adhes Dent. 2005 Autumn;7(3):203-11
33. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent. 1999 Sep;27(7):523-30.
34. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010 Nov;80(6):1081-8.
35. Leas TJ, Hondrum S. The effect of rebonding on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets-a comparison of two clinical techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Feb;103(2):200-201.
36. Khosravanifard B, Nemati-Anaraki S, Nili S, Rakhshan V. Assessing the effects of three resin removal methods and bracket sandblasting on shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets and enamel surface. Orthod Waves. 2011 mar;70(1):27-38.
37. Bishara SE1, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, Warren J. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod. 2007 Mar;77(2):337-41.
38. Trites B, Foley TF, Banting D. Bond strength comparison of 2 self-etching primers over a 3-month storage period. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004 Dec;126(6):709-16.
39. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res. 2005 Feb;84(2):118-32.
40. Ito S, Hashimoto M, Wadgaonkar B, Svizero N, Carvalho RM, Yiu C, et al. Effects of resin hydrophilicity on water sorption and changes in modulus of elasticity. Biomaterials. 2005 Nov;26(33):6449-59.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
