Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets

被引：20

作者：

Guzman U.A. ^{[1
]}

Jerrold L. ^{[2
]}

Vig P.S. ^{[3
]}

Abdelkarim A. ^{[4
,5
]}

机构：

[1] Jacksonville, FL 32246

[2] Orthodontic Consulting Group LLC, Jacksonville, FL 32256

[3] School of Orthodontics, Jacksonville University, Jacksonville, FL 32211, 2800 University Blvd., N

[4] Jackson, MS 39216-4505

[5] Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS

来源：

Progress in Orthodontics | / 14卷 / 1期

关键词：

Adhesive remnant index; Precoated brackets; Shear bond strength;

D O I：

10.1186/2196-1042-14-39

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) at the enamel-bonding interface of precoated and conventionally bonded brackets, utilizing standardized procedures. Methods: The test sample consisted of 90 recently extracted bovine permanent mandibular incisors. The teeth were bonded using the same protocol and were tested in three different situations. A material testing systems machine was utilized for debonding, and the remaining adhesive on the tooth was recorded. Results: Immediately after bonding, we found that the shear bond strength of the precoated brackets (6.27 MPa) was significantly higher than that of conventional brackets (5.37 MPa) (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences in bond strength were found between the two bracket systems after 24 h of bonding or after thermocycling. The conventional brackets had higher ARI scores than the precoated bracket systems immediately after bonding and after 24 h. Conclusions: Since there were no significant differences in the bonding strength after 24 h, the immediate bonding strength of the precoated brackets during the first day does not appear to be a major advantage over the conventional bracket systems. However, less adhesive on the tooth after debonding is an advantage of precoated brackets. © 2013 Guzman et al.; licensee Springer.

引用

页码：1 / 5

页数：4

共 22 条

[1]

Leloup G., D'Hoore W., Bouter D., Degrange M., Vreven J., Meta-analytical review of factors involved in dentin adherence, J Dent Res., 80, pp. 1605-1614, (2001)

[2]

Swartz M.L., Limitations of in vitro orthodontic bond strength testing, J Clin Orthod., 41, pp. 207-210, (2007)

[3]

Mandall N.A., Millett D.T., Mattick C.R., Hickman J., Worthington H.V., McFarlane T.V., Orthodontic adhesives: A systematic review, J Orthod., 29, pp. 205-210, (2002)

[4]

Fox N.A., McCabe J.F., Buckley J.G., A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics, Br J Orthod., 21, pp. 33-43, (1994)

[5]

Reynolds I., A review of direct orthodontic bonding, Br J Orthod., 2, pp. 171-178, (1975)

[6]

Arhun N., Arman A., Sesen C., Karabulut E., Korkmaz Y., Gokalp S., Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with 3 self-etch adhesives, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 129, pp. 547-550, (2006)

[7]

Eliades T., Bourauel C., Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: The picture we miss and its clinical relevance, Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 127, pp. 403-412, (2005)

[8]

Millett D.T., Hallgren A., Cattanach D., McFadzean R., Pattison J., Robertson M., Love J., A 5-year clinical review of bond failure with a light-cured resin adhesive, Angle Orthod., 68, pp. 351-356, (1998)

[9]

De Saeytijd C., Carels C.E., Lesaffre E., An evaluation of a light-curing composite for bracket placement, Eur J Orthod., 16, pp. 541-545, (1994)

[10]

Eliades T., Brantley W.A., The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols, Eur J Orthod., 22, pp. 13-23, (2000)

← 1 2 3 →