The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Effects of different primers on indirect orthodontic bonding: Shear bond strength, color change, and enamel roughness

  • Received : 2017.08.16
  • Accepted : 2017.12.26
  • Published : 2018.07.25
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We aimed to perform in-vitro evaluation to compare 1) shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and color change between self-etched and acid-etched primers; 2) the SBS, ARI and color change between direct and indirect bonding; and 3) the enamel roughness (ER) between 12-blade bur and aluminum oxide polisher debonding methods. Methods: Seventy bovine incisors were distributed in seven groups: control (no bonding), direct (DTBX), and 5 indirect bonding (ITBX, IZ350, ISONDHI, ISEP, and ITBXp). Transbond XT Primer was used in the DTBX, ITBX, and ITBXp groups, flow resin Z350 in the IZ350 group, Sondhi in the ISONDHI group, and SEP primer in the ISEP group. SBS, ARI, and ER were evaluated. The adhesive remnant was removed using a low-speed tungsten bur in all groups except the ITBXp, in which an aluminum oxide polisher was used. After coffee staining, color evaluations were performed using a spectrophotometer immediately after staining and prior to bonding. Results: ISONDHI and ISEP showed significantly lower SBS (p < 0.01). DTBX had a greater number of teeth with all the adhesive on the enamel (70%), compared with the indirect bonding groups (0-30%). The ER in the ITBX and ITBXp groups was found to be greater because of both clean-up techniques used. Conclusions: Direct and indirect bonding have similar results and all the primers used show satisfactory adhesion strength. Use of burs and polishers increases the ER, but polishers ensure greater integrity of the initial roughness. Resin tags do not change the color of the teeth.

Keywords

References

  1. Newman GV. Clinical treatment with bonded plastic attachments. Am J Orthod 1971;60:600-10. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90199-0
  2. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:352-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70252-0
  3. Deahl ST, Salome N, Hatch JP, Rugh JD. Practice-based comparison of direct and indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:738-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.037
  4. Shimizu RH, Grando KG, Shimizu IA, Andriguetto AR, Melo ACM, Witters EL. Assessment of shear bond strength of brackets bonded by direct and indirect techniques: An in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod 2012;17:23.e1-7.
  5. Eliades T, Gioka C, Heim M, Eliades G, Makou M. Color stability of orthodontic adhesive resins. Angle Orthod 2004;74:391-3.
  6. Nojima LI, Araujo AS, Alves Junior M. Indirect orthodontic bonding--a modified technique for improved efficiency and precision. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:109-17. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.109-117.sar
  7. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:333-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8
  8. Stober T, Gilde H, Lenz P. Color stability of highly filled composite resin materials for facings. Dent Mater 2001;17:87-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00065-8
  9. Gegauff AG, Rosenstiel SF, Langhout KJ, Johnston WM. Evaluating tooth color change from carbamide peroxide gel. J Am Dent Assoc 1993;124:65-72.
  10. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:514-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70171-4
  11. Yassen GH, Platt JA, Hara AT. Bovine teeth as substitute for human teeth in dental research: a review of literature. J Oral Sci 2011;53:273-82. https://doi.org/10.2334/josnusd.53.273
  12. Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding in orthodontics: a comparison of attachments. Br J Orthod 1977;4:65-9. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.4.2.65
  13. Hellak A, Ebeling J, Schauseil M, Stein S, Roggendorf M, Korbmacher-Steiner H. Shear bond strength of three orthodontic bonding systems on enamel and restorative materials. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016: 6307107.
  14. Linn BJ, Berzins DW, Dhuru VB, Bradley TG. A comparison of bond strength between direct- and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod 2006; 76:289-94.
  15. Yi GK, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:577-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00503-1
  16. Menini A, Cozzani M, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Cozzani P, Gandini P. A 15-month evaluation of bond failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct versus indirect bonding technique: a clinical trial. Prog Orthod 2014;15:70. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40510-014-0070-9
  17. Daub J, Berzins DW, Linn BJ, Bradley TG. Bond strength of direct and indirect bonded brackets after thermocycling. Angle Orthod 2006;76:295-300.
  18. Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect-bonding resins. Angle Orthod 2004;74:405-9.
  19. Klocke A, Shi J, Kahl-Nieke B, Bismayer U. Bond strength with custom base indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod 2003;73:176-80.
  20. Miles PG, Weyant RJ. A comparison of two indirect bonding adhesives. Angle Orthod 2005;75:1019-23.
  21. Goracci C, Margvelashvili M, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Ferrari M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 2013;17:609-17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-012-0729-x
  22. Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981;79:500-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0002-9416(81)90462-0
  23. Kim SS, Park WK, Son WS, Ahn HS, Ro JH, Kim YD. Enamel surface evaluation after removal of orthodontic composite remnants by intraoral sand- blasting: a 3-dimensional surface profilometry study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:71-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.07.027
  24. Sigiliao LC, Marquezan M, Elias CN, Ruellas AC, Sant'Anna EF. Efficiency of different protocols for enamel clean-up after bracket debonding: an in vitro study. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20:78-85. https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.20.5.078-085.oar
  25. Janiszewska-Olszowska J, Tomkowski R, Tandecka K, Stepien P, Szatkiewicz T, Sporniak-Tutak K, et al. Effect of orthodontic debonding and residual adhesive removal on 3D enamel microroughness. PeerJ 2016;4:e2558. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.2558
  26. Karan S, Kircelli BH, Tasdelen B. Enamel surface roughness after debonding. Angle Orthod 2010;80: 1081-8. https://doi.org/10.2319/012610-55.1
  27. Zachrisson BU, Arthun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979;75:121-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(79)90181-7
  28. Campbell PM. Enamel surfaces after orthodontic bracket debonding. Angle Orthod 1995;65:103-10.
  29. Yannikakis SA, Zissis AJ, Polyzois GL, Caroni C. Color stability of provisional resin restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent 1998;80:533-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-3913(98)70028-9

Cited by

  1. An interview with Lincoln Issamu Nojima vol.24, pp.3, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1590/2177-6709.24.3.022-032.int
  2. Effects of adhesive systems at different temperatures on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets vol.13, pp.2, 2018, https://doi.org/10.15171/joddd.2019.016