• Journal of the korean academy of Pediatric Dentistry
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.427-432
• /
• 2009

The aim of this study was to compare the shear-peel strength and the fracture site of 5 commercially available orthodontic band cements. One hundred molar bands were cemented to extracted human 3rd molars. The specimens were prepared in accordance with the manufacturer's instructions for each cement. After storage in a humidor at $37^{\circ}C$ for 24 hours, the shear debonding force was assessed for each specimen using an universal testing machine with crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. Maximal failure stress was converted to mean shear-peel strength, MPa. The predominant site of band failure was recorded visually for all specimens as either at the band/cement or cement/enamel interface. Mean shear-peel strength of Ormco was the highest(2.44${\pm}$0.57), followed by Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$(2.24${\pm}$0.50), $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$(2.10${\pm}$0.57), 3M $Unitek^{TM}$(1.82${\pm}$0.43), $Band-Lok^{TM}$(1.73${\pm}$0.28). There were statistically significant differences between Ormco and $Band-Lok^{TM}$, Ormco and 3M $Unitek^{TM}$, and Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$ and $Band-Lok^{TM}$(p<0.05). The predominant site of bonding failure for bands cemented with the Ormco was at the band/cement interface, whereas bands cemented with Ultra $Band-Lok^{TM}$ failed predominantly at the enamel/cement interface. There was no significant difference among the other cements(Fuji $Ortho^{TM}$, 3M $Unitek^{TM}$, $Ketac-Cem^{TM}$).

• The korean journal of orthodontics
• /
• v.31 no.1 s.84
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 2001

Acidic primer is the bonding agent which combines the conditioning and priming agent into the single solution and was originally developed for the dentin bonding system. It is less harmful to the tooth structure and more convenient to manipulate than the traditional etching procedure. The Purpose of this study is to evaluate the shear bond strength of various bonding materials when the enamel is treated with acidic primer for the bracket bonding procedure. Fifty recently extracted human premolars were randomly separated into five groups -Group I using Clearfil Liner Bond 2 adhesive system to the enamel treated with acidic primer, Group II using Transbond XT adhesive system to the enamel treated with acidic primer, Group III using panavia 21 adhesive system to the enamel treated with acidic primer, Group IV using Fuji-Ortho LC adhesive system to the enamel treated with acidic primer, Group V using Transbond XT adhesive system to the enamel treated with 37$\%$ phosphoric acid. The shear bond strength was measured with Instron universal testing machine after storing in $37^{\circ}C$ water bath for 48 hours. After debonding, the teeth and brackets were examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) and assessed with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). The results were as follows : 1. There were no significant differences in shear bond strength between group III ($8.69{\pm}2.72MPa$), group IV (9.7 ± 3.16 MPa), and group V ($10.48{\pm}2.60MPa$) (p>0.05). 2. The shear bond strength of group III and group IV was significantly higher than that of group I ($1.09{\pm}0.53MPa$), and Group II ($2.70{\pm}1.46MPa$) (p<0.05). 3. The ARI of group IV ($2.1{\pm}1.1$) and group V ($2.9{\pm}0.3$) was significantly higher than that of group I ($0.2{\pm}0.4$), group II ($0.3{\pm}0.9$) and group III ($0.2{\pm}0.4$) (p<0.05). 4. There were no significant difference between the ARI of group IV and group V (p>0.05). This result suggests that the combination of acidic primer and some bonding adhesive can provide sufficient shear bond strength for clinical orthodontics.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.138-150
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the difference of surface roughness of composite resin according to composite resin type, polishing methods, and use of resin sealant. Two hundred rectangular specimens, sized $8{\times}3{\times}2mm$, were made of Micro-new (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, IL, U.S.A) and Filtek Supreme (3M ESPE Dental Products, St. Paul, MN, U.S.A.), and divided into two groups; Micronew-M group, Filtek Supreme-S group. Specimens for each composite group were subdivided into five groups by finishing and polishing instruments used; M1 & S1(polyester strip), M2 & S2 (Sof-Lex disc), M3 & S3 (Enhance disc and polishing paste), M4 & S4(Astropol) and M5 & S5 (finishing bur), Polished groups were added letter B after the application of resin surface sealant (Biscover), eg, M1B and S1B. After specimens were stored with distilled water for 24hr, average surface roughness (Ra) was taken using a surface roughness tester. Representative specimens of each group were examined by FE-SEM (S-4700: Hitachi High Technologies Co., Tokyo, Japan). The data were analysed using paired t-test, ANOVA and Duncan's tests at the 0.05 probability level. The results of this study were as follows ; 1. The lowest Ra was achieved in all groups using polyester strip and the highest Ra was achieved in M5, S5 and M5B groups using finishing bur. On FE-SEM, M1 and S1 groups provided the smoothest surfaces, M5 and S5 groups were presented the roughest surfaces and voids by debonding of filler on the polished specimens. 2. There was no significant difference in Ra between Micronew and Filtek Supreme before the application of resin sealant, but Micronew was smoother than Filek Supreme after the application of resin sealant. 3. There was significant corelation between Ra of type of composite resin and polishing methods before the application of resin sealant (p=0.000), but no significant interaction between them after the application of resin sealant. On FE-SEM, most of composite resin surfaces were smooth after the application of resin sealant on the polished specimens. 4. Compared with before and after the application of resin sealant in group treated in the same composite and polishing methods, Ra of M4B and M5B was statistically lower than that of M4 and M5, and S5B was lower than that of S5, respectively (p<0.05). In conclusion, surface roughness by polishing instruments was different according to type of composite resin. Overall, polyester strip produced the smoothest surface, but finishing bur produced the roughest surface. Application of resin sealant provided the smooth surfaces in specimens polished with Enhance, Astropol and finishing bur, but not provided them in specimens polished with Sof-Lex disc.