Xeno III self-etching adhesive in orthodontic bonding: the next generation

Does different application modes of universal adhesives with universal resin composites affect the microleakage in class V cavities? An in vitro study

AIM

Composite restorations often have gingival margins near the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), where the microleakage of these margins can significantly contribute to the restoration failure, especially in the cervical lesions. It is important to determine the microleakage is crucial, as it typically occurs through the interfacial gap between the tooth and the restoration. Various resin composites and techniques have been developed to minimize this gap and reduce the risk of microleakage. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the levels of microleakage of different modes of a universal adhesive and two novel resin composites in restoring class V cavities in the central incisors.

METHODS

Sixty-six freshly extracted sound human central incisors of the similar size were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n = 33 per group) according to the brand of resin composite. Each group was further divided into 3 subgroups based on the Scotch Bond Universal (3 M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN, USA) application protocol used: (a) total etch, (b) self-etch and (c) selective etch. After composite restoration completed with Omnichroma (Tokuyama Dental Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and Filtek Universal Restorative (3 M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN, USA), each tooth was immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution at 37C0 for 24 h. After dye penetration, teeth were sectioned and evaluated with conventional (scoring) and digital methods (ImageJ). The intra- and inter-examiner agreement was estimated according to the Kappa statistics and the results were analyzed with the one-way ANNOVA and the Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

The rates of microleakage of the gingival and incisal margins are statistically similar, regardless of the composite brand and the method of application of the universal adhesive.

CONCLUSION

The microleakage exhibited by current adhesives and resins is independent of the adhesive application mode and measurement method.

Shear bond strength of a RMGIC for orthodontic bracket bonding to enamel

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a restorative resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) for orthodontic bracket bonding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-one human teeth were randomly divided into 11 groups (n = 11) according to the surface treatment applied (H3PO4 ± Transbond Plus (TSEP) or Scotchbond Universal (SU)), and the adhesive used (Riva LC HV (RIVA), Fuji Ortho (FUJI), and Transbond XT (TXT)). For each sample, a metal button was bonded. SBS tests were performed at 1 week and debonded specimens were observed for failure modes determination. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to compare SBS differences and Fisher's exact test to analyze the failure modes (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

TSEP + FUJI and H3PO4 + SU + TXT showed the highest SBS values while H3PO4 + TSEP + RIVA showed the lowest value. Cohesive failure and mixed failure were found in the groups with SU and TXT and adhesive failure in the other groups.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

The bonding of orthodontic attachments to enamel could be performed with any of the three materials studied. The use of a universal adhesive in the bonding protocol could optimize the adhesion values. Clinical studies would be needed to confirm the results obtained.

A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives

Objectives:

The objective of this study is to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of stainless steel (SS) orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives.

Materials and Methods:

Eighty newly extracted premolars were bonded to 0.022 SS brackets (Ormco, Scafati, Italy) and equally divided into four groups based on adhesive used: (1) Rely-a-Bond (self-cure adhesive, Reliance Orthodontic Product, Inc., Illinois, USA), (2) Transbond XT (light-cure adhesive, 3M Unitek, CA, USA), (3) Transbond Plus (sixth generation self-etch primer, 3M Unitek, CA, USA) with Transbond XT (4) Xeno V (seventh generation self-etch primer, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) with Xeno Ortho (light-cure adhesive, Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) adhesive. Brackets were debonded with a universal testing machine (Model No. 3382 Instron Corp., Canton, Mass, USA). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recordedIn addition, the conditioned enamel surfaces were observed under a scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Results:

Transbond XT (15.49 MPa) attained the highest bond strength. Self-etching adhesives (Xeno V, 13.51 MPa; Transbond Plus, 11.57 MPa) showed clinically acceptable SBS values and almost clean enamel surface after debonding. The analysis of variance (F = 11.85, P < 0.0001) and Chi-square (χ² = 18.16, P < 0.05) tests revealed significant differences among groups. The ARI score of 3 (i.e., All adhesives left on the tooth) to be the most prevalent in Transbond XT (40%), followed by Rely-a-Bond (30%), Transbond Plus with Transbond XT (15%), and Xeno V with Xeno Ortho (10%). Under SEM, enamel surfaces after debonding of the brackets appeared porous when an acid-etching process was performed on the surfaces of Rely-a-Bond and Transbond XT, whereas with self-etching primers enamel presented smooth and almost clean surfaces (Transbond Plus and Xeno V group).

Conclusion:

All adhesives yielded SBS values higher than the recommended bond strength (5.9-7–8 MPa), Seventh generation self-etching primer Xeno V with Xeno Ortho showed clinically acceptable SBS and the least amount of residual adhesive left on the enamel surface after debonding.

Effect of lactic Acid etching on bonding effectiveness of orthodontic bracket after water storage

Objective. To determine the effect of lactic acid at various concentrations on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with the resin adhesive system before and after water storage. Materials and Methods. Hundred extracted human premolars were divided into 5 treatment groups and etched for 30 seconds with one of the following agents: lactic acid solution with (A) 10%, (B) 20%, (C) 30%, and (D) 50%; group E, 37% phosphoric acid (control). Metal brackets were bonded using a Transbond XT. Bonding effectiveness was assessed by shear bond strength after 24 hours and 6 months of water storage at 37°C. The data were analyzed with 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test (α = .001). Results. Lactic acid concentration and water storage resulted in significant differences for brackets bond strength (P < .001). 20% lactic acid had significantly higher mean bond strength values (SD) for all conditions: 24 hours [12.2 (.7) MPa] and 6 months [10.1 (.6) MPa] of water storage. 37% phosphoric acid had intermediate bond strength values for all conditions: 24 hours [8.2 (.6) MPa] and 6 months [6.2 (.6) MPa] of water storage. Also, there were differences in bond strength between storage time, with a reduction in values from 24 hours and 6 months for all experimental groups (P < .001). Conclusion. Lactic acid could be used in place of phosphoric acid as an enamel etchant for bonding of orthodontic brackets.

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) to enamel and the distribution of failure modes of brackets bonded using a new self-adhering flowable resin composite (Vertise Flow, VF), with or without preliminary phosphoric acid etching (PAE).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty extracted premolars were randomly divided into four groups (n = 20): (1) etch-and-rinse adhesive (E&R), PAE/Transbond XT Primer/Transbond XT Paste (3M Unitek); (2) self-etch adhesive (SE), Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (3M Unitek)/Transbond XT Paste; (3) VF; (4) PAE/VF. In each group, 10 bracketed teeth were debonded within 30 min, while the remaining teeth were subjected to thermocycling before testing. SBS and adhesive remnant index were recorded.

RESULTS

SE measured significantly lower early SBS than PAE/VF. Early SBSs recorded by VF were slightly higher yet statistically similar to those of E&R. Such levels of adhesion were achieved by VF regardless of preliminary PAE. After thermocycling, VF measured the lowest SBS. When debonded early, VF and SE tended to leave less residues on enamel surface than E&R. After thermocycling, the failure pattern changed significantly for VF and PAE/VF specimens that all exhibited adhesive failures at the tooth-bracket interface.

CONCLUSIONS

VF achieved early bracket SBSs similar to E&R. Following thermocycling, VF and PAE/VF manifested a significant decrease in SBS.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Although the simplified handling and the satisfactory early SBS of VF may prompt its use for bracket bonding, the decrease in retention noted after thermocycling warns that the issue of bond durability should be thoroughly addressed prior to endorsing this clinical application of VF.

Effect of early orthodontic force on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems

INTRODUCTION

This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of applying early orthodontic force on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded with 4 adhesive systems.

METHODS

Eighty stainless steel brackets were bonded to the enamel surfaces of extracted premolars with 4 adhesive systems. For each adhesive, 10 brackets were bonded without application of force (groups 1, 3, 5, and 7), and another 10 were subjected to a 120-g force with a coil spring (groups 2, 4, 6, and 8). This force was applied 30 minutes after bonding and maintained for 24 hours. Groups 1 and 2 had Rely-a-bond primer and Rely-a-bond adhesive (Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill). Groups 3 and 4 had Transbond XT primer and Transbond XT adhesive (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Groups 5 and 6 had Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer and Transbond XT adhesive (3M Unitek). Groups 7 and 8 had RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany). After thermocycling, SBS testing was performed by using a universal testing machine (Type 500, Lloyd Instruments Ltd, Fareham Hants, UK). The results of SBS testing for all adhesives were analyzed by 2-way analysis of variance and the Duncan test. The unpaired Student t test was used to compare the effect of force on the SBS of each adhesive.

RESULTS

Transbond XT primer and its adhesive had the highest values (without force, 11.2 +/- 3.1 MPa; with force, 10.7 +/- 2.7 MPa), and RelyX Unicem had the lowest (without force, 5.8 +/- 1.5MPa; with force, 5.7 +/- 1.6 MPa). Application of force yielded nonsignificant reductions in SBS for all adhesives; this reduction was less pronounced with RelyX Unicem.

CONCLUSIONS

For all studied adhesive systems, orthodontic force up to 120 g can be applied within the first hour after bonding with no deleterious effects on bond strength.

Bracket bond strengths of new adhesive systems

INTRODUCTION

Amorphous calcium phosphate, antibacterial monomer MDPB (12-methacryloyloxydodecyl-pyridinium bromide), and self-etching primers are some of the novel elements now added to bonding systems. The purpose of this study was to compare bond strengths of newer bonding systems with either bioactive components or self-etching primers with a conventional bonding system.

METHODS

Four new bonding systems, Aegis Ortho (with amorphous calcium phosphate) (Harry J. Bosworth, Skokie, Ill), Clearfil Protect Bond (self-etching primer with an antibacterial monomer) (Kuraray Dental, Kurashiki, Japan), iBond (reformulated self-etching primer) (Heraeus Kulzer, Hanau, Germany), and Clearfil S3 Bond (self-etching primer with combined hydrophilic and hydrophobic technology) (Kuraray Dental), were tested and compared with Transbond XT, a conventional bracket bonding system (3 M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Brackets bonded with these materials were tested in the shear-peel mode at 30 minutes and 24 hours, and the location of the bond failures was observed.

RESULTS

The newer bonding systems Aegis Ortho (5.3 +/- 0.5 MPa at 30 minutes, 7.2 +/- 0.7 MPa at 24 hours), Clearfil Protect Bond (7.1 +/- 0.8 MPa at 30 minutes, 6.1 +/- 0.6 MPa at 24 hours), Clearfil S3 Bond (3.8 MPa at 30 minutes, 6.6 +/- 0.5 MPa at 24 hours), and iBond (3.9 +/- 0.4 MPa at 30 minutes, 3.9 +/- 0.3 MPa at 24 hours) achieved shear bond strengths significantly lower than Transbond XT (10.1 +/- 0.8 MPa at 30 minutes, 10.1 +/- 1.0 MPa at 24 hours).

CONCLUSIONS

Aegis Ortho, Clearfil Protect Bond, Clearfil S3 Bond, and iBond produced lower bond strengths than did Transbond XT, with iBond's strength lower than what might be acceptable for clinical usefulness.

Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to enamel with a self-etching primer. Effects of increasing storage time after activation

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate bonding efficacy of activated Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TPSEP) used at different time points with Transbond XT to bond metallic orthodontic brackets to bovine incisors.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The inferior incisors of 210 bovines were randomly divided into seven groups (n = 30). TPSEPs were mixed, activated, and kept activated for 30 (group 30), 21 (group 21), 15 (group 15), 7 (group 7), 3 (group 3), or 1 (group 1) days before bonding, and in one group (group 0) TPSEP was used immediately after mixed. At day zero, incisors in each group were bonded in exactly the same way. After applying TPSEP, brackets were bonded with Transbond XT, according to the manufacturer's instructions. After 24 hours, shear bond strength (SBS) tests were performed for all samples at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min, and the Adhesive Remnant Index was scored.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences between the SBS of groups 0, 1, 3, 7, and 15 (P > .05) However, those groups had higher SBS (P < .05) compared with groups 21 and 30. No significant difference (P > .05) was observed between groups 21 and 30. Despite the decrease in SBS for groups 21 and 30, bond strength values were still satisfactory.

CONCLUSION

After activation, the TPSEP mix can be stored for a period of 15 days without losing its adhesive properties.

Examination of six orthodontic adhesives with electron microscopy, hardness tester and energy dispersive X-ray microanalyzer

OBJECTIVE

To examine the ultrastructure of six light-cure orthodontic adhesives with scanning electron microscope (SEM) and transmission electron microscope (TEM), microhardness tester, and energy dispersive X-ray microanalyzer (EDX).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The orthodontic adhesives evaluated were Transbond XT, Light Bond, BeautyOrtho Bond, Kurasper F, Heliosit Orthodontic, and Salivatect. Specimens of each adhesive were carefully prepared for observation under SEM and TEM. Furthermore, the Vickers hardness was tested, and the adhesives were evaluated with EDX.

RESULTS

SEM and TEM images illustrated great diversity of the adhesives ultrastructure. The Vickers hardness test showed significant differences among all the adhesives (except Transbond XT and Salivatect). Although some similar elements were detected with EDX, the concentration was different in each adhesive.

CONCLUSION

Orthodontic brackets can be bonded to the enamel surface with the adhesives available on the market. However, orthodontists might achieve better results identifying their properties and compositions.