Dentistry: Advanced Research

Volume: 2017; Issue: 1
24 Oct 2017

Shear Bond Strength of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded With Different New Generation Composite Systems

Research Article

Yasin Atakan Benkli1, Suleyman Kutalmış Buyuk1, Pınar Yilmaz Atali2, Nuri Mert Topbasi1*, Faik Bülent Topbaşi2

1Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey
2Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Marmara University, Istanbul, Turkey

*Corresponding author: Nuri Mert Topbasi, Research Assistant, Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ordu University, Ordu, Turkey. Tel: +90 5552367982; Fax: +90 4522121289; E-mail: m_topbasi@hotmail.com

Received Date: 14 March, 2017; Accepted Date: 29 March, 2017; Published Date: 07 April, 2017

1462985612_pdfs

Abstract

Introduction

References

Figures

Tables

Suggested Citation

Abstract

 

Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of six different adhesive systems including Transbond XT (3M ESPE) and Light Bond Kit (Reliance) as orthodontic bonding system; Fusion Xtra (Voco) and Xtrafil (Voco) as bulk-fill composites; Nexus (Kerr) and Maxcem Elite (Kerr) as adhesive-resin cements for bonding of metal and ceramic brackets.

Methods: Sixty permanent maxillary premolars were randomly divided into twelve equal groups. Stainless steel (Gemini bracket; 3M Unitek) and ceramic (Radiance, American Orthodontics) maxillary premolars brackets with a 0.022 inch slot, were bonded to the teeth using six different adhesive systems according to manufacturers’ instructions. Shear bond strength of the samples were done by Shimatsu instron instrument. Following the shear bond test, samples were evaluated under stereomicroscope for Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance (ANOVA), post hoc Tukey HSD and chi-square tests.

Results: Analysis of variance test showed a significantly differences among the various group. Brackets bonded with Light Bond Kit and Fusion Xtra in metallic brackets showed a significantly lower SBS than other groups (P<0.05). Additionally, teeth bonded with Tranbond XT ceramic brackets showed a significantly higher SBS than the other groups. Moreover, significant differences in debond locations (ARI scores) were found among the various groups.

Conclusion: The bond strength of ceramic brackets was significantly higher than metallic ones except Xtrafil and the adhesive-resin cement.

Clinical Significance: Bulk-fill composites can successfully be used for bracket bonding.

 

Keywords: Bracket; Bulk Fill Composite; Shear Bond Strength

Introduction

 

For over past 50 years, adhesives and their bonding properties to enamel and dentine has greatly progressed in the fields of dentistry and orthodontics [1]. Direct bonding has a main role in modern orthodontics. Easy bracket placement, acceptable clinical success rate, and reduction in chair side time are the advantages of this technique. Significant bond failure has varied in the literature (0.5-16%) [2]. Orthodontic adhesives ideally should provide adequate bond strength and aesthetic appearance after debonding of the enamel. With this in mind, the highest quality and bonding ability of orthodontic brackets have been at the forefront for researchers and engineers [3,4].

 

While various types of composites such as micro filled, micro hybrid, flow able are available [5], another development in this field has been the introductions of nanocomposites that claim to have achieved higher wear resistance and appropriate mechanical properties. Nanocomposites enhance the hybrid layer, increase marginal seal, and reduce polymerization shrinkage due to their higher filler content. Furthermore, nano-filler bandings have shown satisfactory bond strength to enamel and dentin, and can be utilized for direct and indirect restorations [6,7]. Despite the extensive applications of nanocomposites in restorative dentistry, there is inadequate data regarding the possibility of using them for bonding orthodontic brackets. The “bulk fill” resin nanocomposites are light-curing and are cured to a maximum increment thickness, which is generally cured at a thickness of 4mm [8,9].

 

Good composite should provide sufficient bond strength to maintain the restoration in position even at high masticatory load [10]. Various types of cements are available, which include total-etch resin cement that is a multi-step adhesive system. These are sensitive and time-consuming [11]. In the attempt to simplify the application procedures, the self-etching adhesive system was developed in which the smear layer is preserved and altered [12]. With this adhesive system, primer and bonding agent can be applied to the tooth without prior etching and rinsing the tooth [13,14]. According to the manufacturer, NX3 Nexus® cement is dual-cure resin cement that can be used with both as a total-etch and self-etch adhesive.

 

The main concern for adhesive research and engineering is the overall Shear Bonding Strength (SBS). In addition, the SBS must be accounted for when applied to an orthodontic bracket, because it must withstand routine forces endured by the mouth. Interestingly, low shear strength can result in higher costs and prolonged treatment times. Furthermore, low SBS can cause damage to the enamel and dentin when the bracket loses its adhesion.

 

Presently, self-etching adhesives have a wide range of resistant forces that range from 2.8 to 16.6 MPa. Previously published reports have shown that resistances forces of 5.9-7.8 MPa are sufficient for orthodontic adhesives [15], while others have determined it to have a higher range (10.4-11.8 MPa) [16,17]. Newer design aesthetic plastic or ceramic brackets has become popular and a need to determine SDS for these models is necessary [18]. In addition, bonding and adhesive properties as well as their durability are a topic of debate in the clinic [19]. The objective of this report was to compare the SBS of six different bonding agents for bonding of ceramic and metallic brackets.

 

Materials and Methods

 

Sixty extracted non‑carries human maxillary premolars were used in this in vitro study. The extracted premolars were stored at room temperature in distilled water. The inclusion criteria for this study dental enamel without caries, or cracks. Each premolar was vertically embedded in an acrylic resin block in a way that the crown was exposed. The buccal enamel surface of the molar was polished with a non-fluoridated pumice powder, washed, and dried with a stream of air. Randomly, the premolars were categorized into groups (n=12). All adhesive materials are shown in Table 1. Bonding of the metallic and ceramic brackets was performed by the same orthodontist according to the (Nuri Mert Topbasi) procedures.

 

Group 1: Etching of the enamel surfaces were done using a solution of 37% phosphoric acid (Gel Etch, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, USA) and air-dried following a water rinse, all for 15 seconds. The Transbond XT primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, USA) was then used to treat the enamel followed by Transbond XT adhesive application to the base of the bracket. Maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) were bonded using a standard protocol.

 

Group 2: The enamel on the molars were etched with Reliance Etching Agent (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) and a sealant treatment was performed with Light Bond Sealant (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) . Then, the adhesive Light Bond Kit (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) was used to treat the bracket base. Maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) were adhered using the manufacturer’s protocol.

 

Group 3: Enamel etching was done using phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) for 15 seconds, aspirate acid, and a rinse with water for 15 seconds. Without overdrying, removal of excess moisture with compressed air was done to produce a silky matte surface. Activation of a single dose adhesive package (Futrabond U, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) and adhesive application to the cavity surface using the Voco Single Tim brush and rub adhesive in for 20 seconds was also performed. A dry adhesive, with dry and oil-free air, was done for at least 5 seconds followed by a light cure for 10 seconds. The Fusion Xtra, ormocer based Bulk fill (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was then administered to the bracet base and a light cure was done for 10 seconds. Maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) were bonded using the manufacturer’s directions.

 

Group 4: Enamel etching was done using phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) for 15 seconds, aspirate acid, and a rinse with water for 15 seconds. Without overdrying, removal of excess moisture with compressed air was done to produce a silky matte surface. Activation of a single dose adhesive package (Futrabond U, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) and adhesive application to the cavity surface using the Voco Single Tim brush and rub adhesive in for 20 seconds was also performed. A dry adhesive, with dry and oil-free air, was done for at least 5 seconds followed by a light cure for 10 seconds. (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was applied to the bracet base and light cure for 10s.The X-tra fil bulk fill (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was then administered to the bracet base and a light cure was done for 10 seconds. Maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) were bonded using the manufacturer’s directions.

 

Group 5: Etching of the enamel surfaces were done using a solution of 37% phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen), rinsed thoroughly for 20 seconds, and blotted-dry with a cotton swab for a glistening surface. Generous amounts of adhesive (Solobond Plus, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) were applied using light brushing motion to thoroughly wet the surface for 15 seconds. A high-volume evacuation tip was placed over the enamel for 1–2 seconds to evaporate the solvent after an air-dry for 3 seconds with clean, dry air. The Surface should have a uniform glossy appearance upon light-cure for 20 seconds. Lastly, apply an auto-mixed cement (Nexus, Kerr Orange, CA, USA) and light-cure for 20 seconds. Maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) were bonded using a standard protocol.

 

Group 6: Etching of the enamel surfaces were done using a solution of 37% phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen), rinsed thoroughly for 20 seconds, and blotted-dry with a cotton swab for a glistening surface. Maxcem Elite (Kerr orange CA, USA) was used as a dual cure resin cement that self-etches and self-adheres. No adhesive were applied on enamel surfaces. Only auto mixed cement (Maxcem elite, Kerr Orange CA, USA) were applied on bracket surface a maxillary premolar metallic brackets (Gemini bracket, 3M Unitek, USA) and were bonded using manufacturer’s protocol.

 

Group 7: Etching of the enamel surfaces were done using a solution of 37% phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen), rinsed thoroughly for 15 seconds, and blotted-dry with a cotton swab for a glistening surface. After Transbond XT primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, USA) was applied to the enamel surfaces. Then, Transbond XT adhesive was administered to the base of the bracket base. Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were bonded using a standard protocol.

 

Group 8: The enamel on the molars were etched with Reliance Etching Agent (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) and a sealant treatment was performed with Light Bond Sealant (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) . Then, the adhesive Light Bond Kit (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA) was used to treat the bracket base. Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were adhered using the manufacturer’s protocol.

 

Group 9: Enamel etching was done using phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) for 15 seconds, aspirate acid, and a rinse with water for 15 seconds. Without overdrying, removal of excess moisture with compressed air was done to produce a silky matte surface. Activation of a single dose adhesive package (Futrabond U, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) and adhesive application to the cavity surface using the Voco Single Tim brush and rub adhesive in for 20 seconds was also performed. A dry adhesive, with dry and oil-free air, was done for at least 5 seconds followed by a light cure for 10 seconds. (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was applied to the bracet base and light cure for 10s.The X-tra fil bulk fill (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was then administered to the bracet base and a light cure was done for 10 seconds. Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were bonded using the manufacturer’s directions.

 

Group 10: Enamel etching was done using phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) for 15 seconds, aspirate acid, and a rinse with water for 15 seconds. Without overdrying, removal of excess moisture with compressed air was done to produce a silky matte surface. Activation of a single dose adhesive package (Futrabond U, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen) and adhesive application to the cavity surface using the Voco Single Tim brush and rub adhesive in for 20 seconds was also performed. A dry adhesive, with dryand oil-free air, was done for at least 5 seconds followed by a light cure for 10 seconds. (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was applied to the bracet base and light cure for 10s.The X-tra fil bulk fill (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven) composite was then administered to the bracet base and a light cure was done for 10 seconds. Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were bonded using the manufacturer’s directions.

 

Group 11: Etching of the enamel surfaces were done using a solution of 37% phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen), rinsed thoroughly for 20 seconds, and blotted-dry with a cotton swab for a glistening surface. Generous amounts of adhesive (Solobond Plus, Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) were applied using light brushing motion to thoroughly wet the surface for 15 seconds using light brushing motion. A high-volume evacuation tip was placed over the enamel for 1–2 seconds to evaporate the solvent after an air-dry for 3 seconds with clean, dry air. The Surface should have a uniform glossy appearance upon light-cure for 20 seconds. Lastly, apply an auto-mixed cement (Nexus, Kerr Orange, CA, USA) and light-cure for 20 seconds. Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were bonded using a standard protocol.

 

Group 12: Etching of the enamel was done for at least 15 seconds with 37% ortho-phosphoric acid (Vococid, Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen), followed by a rinse for 20 seconds and drying with a cotton swab for a glistening surface. The Maxcem Elite (Kerr orange CA, USA) is dual cure resin cement, with self-etching and self-adhesive capabilities. No adhesive were applied on enamel surfaces. Only auto mixed cement (Maxcem elite, Kerr Orange CA, USA) were applied on bracket surface Maxillary premolar ceramic brackets (Radiance, American Orthodontics, USA) were bonded using a manufacturer’s directions.

 

All metallic and ceramic brackets were polymerized by using a LED light unit (VALO, Ultradent Products, South Jordan, USA) for 20 seconds each on both the mesial and distal sides. All premolars placed in distilled water at 37°C until debonding occured. The SBS of the samples were done by Shimatsu Instron (AGS‑1000kGW; Instron, Shimadzu Corp., KYOTO, Japan) instrument with a cross‑head speed of 0.5 mm/min and 1KN load cell (Figure 1). The force, measured in Newtons (N), was determined for removal of the brackets and SBS values were calculated by converting Newtons into Megapascals (MPa) by Trapezium X (Shimadzu Corp., Kyoto, Japan).

 

After debonding procedure, all teeth buccal surfaces and metallic and ceramic brackets were analyzed with a stereomicroscope (Leica M27.5, Heerbrugg, Switzerland) at a magnification of 40X. This was done in order to evaluate the adhesiveness on the enamel surfaces. The ARI (Adhesive remnant index) scoring was done according to the modified ARI score (Figure 2) [20].

 

Modified ARI scores ranged from 1 to 5 where: 1- the entire composite remained on the molar; 2- composite of 90% or greater remained on the molar; 3- a composite 90% or less but more than 10% was left on the molar; 4- a composite of less than 10% was left on the molar; 5- no composite remained.

 

Statistical Analyses

 

All statistics were performed using the SPPS (SPSS Inc., version 21.0, Chicago, IL, USA). After performing Shapiro-Wilks homogeneity test to assess the normality of the data, statistical analyses were done by a parametric tests. Descriptive statistics included mean, standard deviation, maximum, and minimum values that were calculated for each group. One-way variance analysis (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey HSD tests were performed for multiple comparisons of SBS values among the groups. Modified ARI scores were compared with the chi-square test among the groups. A p-value of less than 0.05 was considered significant.

 

Results

 

The statistical analysis of the SBS values for the study of metallic and ceramic bracket groups are shown in Table 2and3, respectively. Xtrafil demonstrated the highest SBS value (11.80 ± 0.72 MPa), while no significant difference was observed between the Xtrafil and Nexus (11.09 ± 0.83 MPa) group for metallic brackets. Transbond XT demonstrated the highest SBS value (21.59 ± 0.71 MPa) in ceramic bracket groups. Brackets bonded with Light Bond Kit (7.39 ± 0.55 MPa) and Fusion Xtra (7.59 ± 0.70 MPa) in metallic brackets had reduced SBS compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Also, Light Bond Kit demonstrated the lowest SBS value

 

Discussion

 

In this study, we have compared the new materials for bonding of both metallic and ceramic brackets. We used two different orthodontic resin cements; bulk fill composites including methacrylate and ormocer based; resin cements including dual cure and self-adhesives. As an integral part of orthodontic therapy, maxillary premolar teeth are typically removed by extraction. For this reason, we used these extracted teeth for clinical outcomes and comparison with the current literature [21,22].

 

According to a study by Reynolds and von Fraunhofer [15] an appropriate adhesive for orthodontic purposes should meet a SBS value of at least 5.9-7.8 MPa. Presently, etching with acid is the preferred method for bonding brackets in orthodontics. Interestingly, there are a few studies that have shown an increased rate of bracket loss due to self-etching primers [18]. Other reports demonstrated SBS yields and rates of failure consistent with the conventional etching procedure [23-25]. We used 37% orthophosphoric acid (Vococid) on the molar surface before application of the orthodontic cement, bulk fill composites, and resin cements. We have reached the SBS scores 7.59-11.80 for metallic brackets and 11.62-21.59 for ceramic brackets.

 

Tight adhesion to the molar has been made possible since the use of phosphoric acid was introduced in dentistry by Buonocore. This procedure later became the pretreatment option started by Newman for orthodontists performing bonding experiments. Self-etching primers are another method used in the place of acid-etching and include hydrophilic monomers such as Hydroxyethylmethacrylate (HEMA). Acid monomers, however, have been created to reduce the bonding steps and minimize errors [26]. Both adhesives we used are made of silanized inorganic particles and a resin made of dimethacrylate. Multiple reports have demonstrated the Bis GMA adhesive physical properties and bonding strengths on metal brackets [27-29]. In our study, we have selected to use new generation adhesive system as Futurabond U is a universal adhesive material. This material can be used both as etch & rinse system and self-etch system. It has HEMA, Bis-GMA, HEDMA, acidic adhesive monomer, urethane dimethacrylate, catalyst, silica nanoparticles. In resin cement groups OptiBond Solo Plus was used with Nexus resin cement. This adhesive has Barium aluminoborosilicate glass, alkyl dimethacrylate resins, fumed silica (silicon dioxide), and sodium hexafluorosilicate. Futurabond U and Solobond Plus have etanole-based solvents. In this present study, an etch-and-rinse technique was preferred to standardize all the adhesive applications of brackets.

 

In this report, the mean SBS of Transbond XT was 21.59 Mpa, and was the highest average compared to the other groups. Multiple reports have shown various force strengths 15.49 MPa [17], 11.2 MPa [30] and 9.7 MPa [31] for the acid-etch adhesives and Transbond XT, respectively. However, Scougall Vilchis et al [32]. Compared Transbond XT with Transbond Plus and other three self-etching adhesives and found that the SBS of Transbond XT was highest (19.0 MPa), followed by Transbond Plus (16.6 MPa) and three other self-etching adhesives.

 

In our study reliance light kit showed the lowest SBS results in both metal and ceramic groups. Controversy to our results, Sorake et al. showed that the Reliance self-etching primer demonstrated the most bond strength followed by Clearfil Protect bond, Clearfil SE bond, and Tran bond Plus. The Clearfil Protect Bond primers, which contain MDPB, have been demonstrated to have antimicrobial effects on the enamel surface [33]. This may be due to the test method and other materials differences. Continuous evaluation of composites will help to understand discrepancies with the literature of SBS tests [34].

 

The filler typically aids in the mechanical properties of the resin. However, there is no evidence that the quantity of the filler directly proportional to the material’s SBS level. In addition, the materials submitted for testing have a known strength value for force evaluation [35]. However, our study showed that filler rate has affected SBS results. Bulk fill composites and dental resin cements have fumed silica in their inorganic structure. Xtrafill has 87% filler rate, and this material has the highest SBS (11.80) score in metal brackets and second highest SBS (12.91) score in porcelain brackets. Transbond XT has 84% filler and it showed the highest SBS (21.59) score in porcelain brackets.

 

In our study bulk fill composites showed as good SBS scores as orthodontic adhesives. Chalipa et al. reported that the nanocomposites can be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets [36]. Therefore, in addition to Transbond XT, both Supreme XT and AELITE Aesthetic Enamel are appropriate for orthodontic purposes and could be utilized for bonding, despite not dis- playing any additional advantages compared to Transbond XT [15]. Since various studies regarding bond strength of composites have utilized adhesives with different size/concentration of filler, it is difficult to compare their results accurately [37]. This is further complicated by different medians and thermocycling rounds [38]. The data shown here are consistent with that of Bishara and colleagues [16]. There was no statistical difference between the SBS value of Transbond XT and a restorative nanocomposite, and both materials were considered applicable in orthodontics.

 

Conclusions

 

Within the limitations this laboratory study showed;

(1) The bond strength of ceramic brackets were significantly higher than metallic ones except Xtrafil.

(2) The adhesive-resin cement and bulk-fill composites can successfully be used for bracket bonding.

References

 

  1. Sorake A, Rai R, Hegde G, Suneja R, Kumar N, et al. (2015) Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of New Self-etching Primer with Conventional Self-etching Primers: An in-vitro J Int Oral Health 7: 17-21.
  2. Reis A, dos Santos JE, Loguercio AD, de Oliveira Bauer JR (2008) Eighteen-month bracket survival rate: conventional versus self-etch adhesive. Eur J Orthod 30: 94-99.
  3. Sharma S, Tandon P, Nagar A, Singh GP, Singh A, et al. (2014) A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci. 3: 29-33.
  4. Kaygisiz E, Egilmez F, Ergun G, Yuksel S, Cekic-Nagas I (2016) Effect of different surface treatments on bond strength of recycled brackets to feldspathic porcelain. J Adhes Sci Technol 30: 45-55.
  5. Hegde MN, Hegde P, Bhandary S, Deepika K (2011) An evalution of compressive strength of newer nanocomposite: An in vitro J Conserv Dent 14: 36-39.
  6. Turssi CP, Ferracane JL, Ferracane LL (2006) Wear and fatigue behavior of nano-structured dental resin composites. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 78: 196-203.
  7. Chalipa J,Akhondi MSA, Arab S, Kharrazifard MJ, et al. (2013) Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with nano-filled composites. J Dent (Tehran) 10: 461-465.
  8. Flury S, Hayoz S, Peutzfeldt A, Hüsler J, Lussi A (2012) Depth of cure of resin composites: is the ISO 4049 method suitable for bulk fill materials?. Dent Mater 28: 521-528.
  9. Flury S, Peutzfeldt A, Lussi A (2014). Influence of increment thickness on microhardness and dentin bond strength of bulk fill resin composites. Dent Mater 30: 1104-1112.
  10. Torres CRG, Pinto LQ, Leonel AG, Pucci CR, Borges AB (2007) Interaction between total-etch and self-etch adhesives and conventional and self-adhesive resin cements. Braz J Oral Sci 6: 1376-1382.
  11. Hikita K, Van Meerbeek B, De Munck J, Ikeda T, Van Landuyt K, et al. (2007) Bonding effectiveness of adhesive luting agents to enamel and dentin. Dent Mater 23: 71-80.
  12. Albaladejo A, Osorio R, Toledano M, Ferrari M (2010). Hybrid layers of etch-and-rinse versus self-etching adhesive systems. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 15: 112-118.
  13. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, et al. (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84: 118-132.
  14. Ab-Ghani Z, Jaafar W, Foo SF, Ariffin Z, Mohamad D (2015) Shear bond strength of computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing feldspathic and nano resin ceramics blocks cemented with three different generations of resin cement. J Conserv Dent 18: 355-359.
  15. Reynolds I, Von Fraunhofer J (1976) Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets–a comparative study of adhesives. Br J Orthod 3: 143-146.
  16. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Soliman MM, Oonsombat C, Laffoon JF, et al. (2006) Evaluation of a new nano-filled restorative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. World J Orthod 8: 8-12.
  17. Sharma S, Tandon P, Nagar A, Singh GP, Singh A, et al. (2014) A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci 3: 29-33.
  18. Zielinski V, Reimann S, Jäger A, Bourauel C (2014) Comparison of shear bond strength of plastic and ceramic brackets. J Orofac Orthop75: 345-357.
  19. Ilie N, Schöner C, Bücher K, Hickel R (2014) An in-vitro assessment of the shear bond strength of bulk-fill resin composites to permanent and deciduous teeth. J Dent 42: 850-855.
  20. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Stifanelli P, Scribantec A, Klersy C (2006) The effect of bleaching on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 130: 83-87.
  21. Abu Alhaija ES, Abu AlReesh IA, AlWahadni AM (2010) Factors affecting the shear bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets bonded to different ceramic surfaces. Eur J Orthod 32: 274-280.
  22. Barbosa VL, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O, Keith O (1995) Direct bonding to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 107: 159-164.
  23. Banks P, Thiruvenkatachari B (2007) Long-term clinical evaluation of bracket failure with a self-etching primer: a randomized controlled trial. J Orthod 34: 243-251.
  24. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI (2003) Effect of self-etching primers on bond strength-are they reliable?. Angle Orthod 73: 64-70.
  25. Turk T, Elekdag-Turk S, Isci D (2007) Effects of self-etching primer on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets at different debond times. Angle Orthod 77: 108-112.
  26. Bakhadher W, Halawany H, Talic N, Abraham N, Jacob V (2015) Factors Affecting the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets-a Review of in vitro Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 58: 43-48.
  27. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO (1978) Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 74: 62-78.
  28. Jost-Brinkmann P, Schiffer A, Miethke RR (1992) The effect of adhesive-layer thickness on bond strength. J Clin Orthod 26: 718-720.
  29. Buzzitta VJ, Hallgren SE, Powers JM (1982) Bond strength of orthodontic direct-bonding cement-bracket systems as studied in vitro. Am J Orthod 81: 87-92.
  30. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W (2001) Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro Angle Orthod 71: 141-148.
  31. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH Jr (2002) Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am. J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 122: 274-276.
  32. Vilchis RJS, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Yamamoto K (2009) Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop136: 425-430.
  33. Sorake A, Rai R, Hegde G, Suneja R, Kumar N, et al. (2015) Comparison of shear bond strength of new self-etching primer with conventional self-etching primers: An in-vitro J Int Oral Health 7: 17-21.
  34. Vicente A, Bravo LA (2009) Evaluation of different flowable materials for bonding brackets. Am J Dent 22: 111-114.
  35. Gama ACS, Moraes AGV, Yamasaki LC, Loguercio AD, Carvalho CN, et al. (2013) Properties of composite materials used for bracket bonding. Braz Dent J 24: 279-283.
  36. Chalipa J, Akhondi MSA, Arab S, Kharrazifard MJ, Ahmadyar M (2013) Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with nano-filled composites. J Dent (Tehran) 10: 461-465.
  37. Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer Jr RA (1991) Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100: 251-258.
  38. Jaffer S, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM (2009) Storage media effect on bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 136: 83-86.
Figures

 

 

Figure 1: Tooth positioned in the universal testing machine. A: frontal view, B: lateral view.

 

 

Figure 2: Stereomicroscopic images of ARI scores at 10X magnification. 1: Transbond XT metallic bracket, 2: Light Bond Kit metallic bracket, 3: Fusion Xtra metallic bracket, 4: Xtrafil metallic bracket, 5: Nexus metallic bracket, 6: Maxem Elite metallic bracket, 7: Transbond XT ceramic bracket, 8: Light Bond Kit ceramic bracket, 9: Fusion Xtra ceamic bracket, 10: Xtrafil ceramic bracket, 11: Nexus ceramic bracket, 12: Maxem Elite ceramic bracket.

Tables

 

Adhesive Material Adhesive Type Manufacturer Composition
Transbond XT Light-cure 3M Unitek, USA 35% phosphoric acid, silane-treated quartz,

bisphenol A diglycidyl ether dimethacrylate,

bisphenol A bis-(2-hydroxyethyl)-ether dimethacrylate, silane-treated silica

Light Bond Kit Light-cure Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Itasca IL, USA Fused Silica, Urethane Dimethacrylate, Triethylene glycol dimethacrylate
Fusion X-tra Light cure

(Ormocer based bulk fill composite)

Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen Nanohybrid ORMOCER , organically modified silicic acid
X-trafil Light cure

(methacrylate based Bulk fill composite)

Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen Bis-GMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, Inorganicfillers, fumedsilica, CQ Photoinitiator; photoaccelerator;
Nexus Dual cure

(resin cement)

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate 2-hydroxy-1,3-propanediyl bismethacrylate (1-methylethylidene)bis[4, 1-phenyleneoxy(2-hydroxy- 3,1-propanediyl)] bismethacrylate
Maxcem Elite Dual cue

(self etch and self adhesive resin cement)

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA Resinmatrix: GPDM, co-monomers (mono-, di-, andtri-functionalmethacrylatemonomers), proprietary self-curingredoxactivator, photoinitiator CQ, stabilizer
Filler load 67%wt: fluoroaluminiosilicateglass, fumedsilica, bariumglass, ytterbiumfluoride
Futurabond U Universal adhesive

Light cure

Voco GmbH, Cuxhawen 2-HEMA, Bis-GMA, HEMA, acidic adhesive monomer, urethane dimethacrylate, catalyst, silica nanoparticles, ethanol
Solobond Plus Etch &rinse adhesive

Light cure

 

Kerr, Orange, CA, USA Ethyl alcohol, alkyl dimethacrylate resins, Barium aluminoborosilicate glass, Fumed silica (silicon dioxide), Sodium hexafluorosilicate.

 

GPD                        :               Mglycerol Dimethacrylate Dihydrogen Phosphate

CQ                          :               Camphorquinone

TEGDMA              :               Triethylenglycoldimethacrylatebis

EMA                      :               Ethoxylated Bisphenol A Glycol Dimethacrylate

Bis-GMA               :               Bisphenol A-Glycidylmethacrylate

UDMA                   :               Urethane Dimethacrylate

ORMOCER          :               Organic Modified Ceramic

HEMA                   :               2-Hydroxyethyl-Methacrylate

 

Table 1: Adhesives materials used in this study.

 

Groups Subgroups Mean SD Minimum Maximum P
Orthodontic Adhesives Transbond XT 10.54B 0.45 10.04 11.16 <0.001
Light Bond Kit 7.39C 0.55 6.53 7.97
Bulk Fill Composites Fusion Xtra 7.59C 0.70 6.85 8.52
Xtrafil 11.80A 0.72 10.88 12.80
Adhesive-Resin Cements Nexus 11.09AB 0.83 10.36 12.22
Maxcem Elite 10.24B 0.37 9.85 10.68

A,B,C Different capital letter indicate that as regards One-way ANOVA/Tukey tests SBS valuesare significantly different at P<0.001, SD: Standard Deviation.

 

Table 2: Comparison of SBS (MPa) values in metallic brackets.

 

Groups Subgroups Mean SD Minimum Maximum P
Orthodontic Adhesives Transbond XT 21.59A 0.71 20.57 22.34 <0.001
Light Bond Kit 11.62D 1.34 9.73 12.68
Bulk Fill Composites Fusion Xtra 12.42CD 0.63 11.6 13.12
Xtrafil 12.91CD 0.59 12.18 13.62
Adhesive-Resin Cements Nexus 18.28B 0.59 17.56 19.02
Maxcem Elite 13.74C 0.31 13.39 14.10

 

A,B,C,D Different capital letter indicate that as regards ANOVA/Tukey tests SBS values are significantly different at P<0.001, SD; Standard Deviation.

Table 3: Comparison of SBS (MPa) values in ceramic brackets.

 

Table 4 and 5 show the modified ARI scores of each study group.

 

Groups Subgroups N 1 2 3 4 5
Orthodontic Adhesives Transbond XT 5 2 (40 %) 1 (20 %) 0 2 (40 %) 0
Light Bond Kit 5 0 3 (60 %) 1 (20 %) 1 (20 %) 0
Bulk Fill Composites Fusion Xtra 5 0 1 (20 %) 2 (40 %) 2 (40 %) 0
Xtrafil 5 3 (60 %) 2 (40 %) 0 0 0
Adhesive-Resin Cements Nexus 5 0 1 (20 %) 4 (80 %) 0 0
Maxcem Elite 5 2 (40 %) 2 (40 %) 1 (20 %) 0 0

All groups that are not significantly different from each other (P>0.05).

 

Table 4: Distribution of Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores among the study groups in metallic brackets.

 

Groups Subgroups N 1 2 3 4 5
Orthodontic Adhesives Transbond XT 5 0 3 (60 %) 2 (20 %) 0 0
Light Bond Kit 5 0 4 (80 %) 1 (20 %) 0 0
Bulk Fill Composites Fusion Xtra 5 0 2 (40 %) 3 (60 %) 0 0
Xtrafil 5 0 1 (20 %) 2 (40 %) 2 (40 %) 0
Adhesive-Resin Cements Nexus 5 0 3 (60 %) 2 (40 %) 0 0
Maxcem Elite 5 0 1 (20 %) 4 (80 %) 0 0

All groups that are significantly different from each other (c2=29.051 ; P<0.001).

 

Table 5: Distribution of Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores among the study groups in ceramic brackets.

Suggested Citation

 

Citation: Benkli YA, Buyuk SK, Atali PY, Topbas i NM, Topbaşi FB (2017) Shear Bond Strength of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded With Different New Generation Composite Systems. Dentistry Adv Res 2017: DTAR-125.

Leave a Reply