Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Jul 18;15(1):34.
doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0034-0.

Effect of Enamel Protective Agents on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets

Affiliations
Free PMC article

Effect of Enamel Protective Agents on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets

Mona A Montasser et al. Prog Orthod. .
Free PMC article

Abstract

Background: This paper aimed to study the effect of two enamel protective agents on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with conventional and self-etching primer (SEP) adhesive systems.

Methods: The two protective agents used were resin infiltrate (ICON) and Clinpro; the two adhesive systems used were self-etching primer system (Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer + Transbond XT adhesive) and a conventional adhesive system (37% phosphoric acid etch + Transbond XT primer + Transbond XT adhesive ). Sixty premolars divided into three major groups and six subgroups were included. The shear bond strength was tested 72 h after bracket bonding. Adhesive remnant index scores (ARI) were assessed. Statistical analysis consisted of a one-way ANOVA for the SBS and Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Mann-Whitney test for the ARI scores.

Results: In the control group, the mean SBS when using the conventional adhesive was 21.1 ± 7.5 MPa while when using SEP was 20.2 ± 4.0 MPa. When ICON was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 20.2 ± 5.6 MPa while with SEP was 17.6 ± 4.1 MPa. When Clinpro was used with the conventional adhesive system, the SBS was 24.3 ± 7.6 MPa while with SEP was 11.2 ± 3.5 MPa. Significant differences in the shear bond strength of the different groups (P = .000) was found as well as in the ARI scores distribution (P = .000).

Conclusion: The type of the adhesive system used to bond the orthodontic brackets, either conventional or self-etching primer, influenced the SBS, while the enamel protective material influenced the adhesive remnant on the enamel surface after debonding.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Typically mounted specimen for SBS testing.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 7 articles

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC. Effect of aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133:716–20. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.042. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Tufekci E, Dixon JS, Gunsolley JC, Lindauer SJ. Prevalence of white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod. 2011;81:206–10. doi: 10.2319/051710-262.1. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Ogaard B, Rølla G, Arends J, Ten Cate JM. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 2. Prevention and treatment of lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;94:123–8. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90360-5. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Chang HS, Walsh LJ, Freer TJ. Enamel demineralization during orthodontic treatment. Aetiology and prevention. Aust Dent J. 1997;42:322–7. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.1997.tb00138.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. O’Reilly MM, Featherstone JD. Demineralization and remineralization around orthodontic appliances: an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;92:33–40. doi: 10.1016/0889-5406(87)90293-9. - DOI - PubMed

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback