Effect of adhesion boosters on indirect bracket bonding

Effect of Adhesion Boosters on the Indirect Bonding with the Lingual Brackets: An In Vitro Study

Aims and Objectives:

To evaluate the influence of the two adhesion boosters (assure universal bonding resin and enhance adhesion booster) on the shear bond strengths of indirectly bonded lingual brackets.

Materials and Methods:

A total of 120 extracted human teeth were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 40), each group contained equal number of anterior and posterior teeth (anterior = 20, posterior = 20), and their lingual surfaces were etched by using 37% phosphoric acid. The bracket was bonded indirectly without using adhesion booster in group 1 (control group). In group 2, the adhesion booster A (enhance adhesion booster) and adhesion booster B (assure universal bonding resin) in group 3 were applied, respectively, before the bonding. The universal testing machine was used to measure the maximum bond strength. Student’s t-test followed by the one-way analysis of variance was used to compare shear bond strength among the groups.

Results:

The shear bond strength was found to be highest in group 3, followed by group 2, and it was least in controls. There were highly significant differences statistically in shear bond strength among the groups 1, 2, and 3 ( P = .001).

Conclusion:

Shear bond strength was admissible in all the groups. The application of the assure universal bonding resin significantly increased the bond strength of lingual brackets in indirect bonding.

Bond strength of indirect bonded brackets in orthodontic adhesives with different viscosities

The aim of this study was to assess the effects of three adhesives with different viscosities and an adhesion promoter on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to human premolars with an indirect bonding system (IDBS). High, medium and low viscosity IDBSs with and without application of the adhesion promoter were used. The mean SBSs of the high and low viscosity IDBSs were significantly higher than that of the medium viscosity IDBS. Application of the adhesion promoter significantly increased the SBSs. The adhesion promoter significantly increased the surface roughness and free-energy of enamel. Irrespective of application or nonapplication of the adhesion promoter, the high and low viscosity IDBSs are effective for bracket bonding. Use of the medium viscosity IDBS in combination with the adhesion promoter is recommended for obtaining a clinically acceptable SBS.

The Indirect Bonding Technique in Orthodontics-A Narrative Literature Review

The technique described as indirect bonding is an alternative to the conventional intraoral method of bracket placement. The appliance position is planned and fixed on a plaster model and then transferred into the oral cavity. Indirect bonding is a precise and time-saving technique of bracket placement, growing in popularity in recent years. It provides a combination of great precision with time efficiency. The fundaments of the indirect bonding technique are presented here. From the first clinical trial conducted almost fifty years ago, the method has evolved; the progress that has been made is described. Modern technologies involving computer scanning and manufacturing have led to great precision in bracket placement. Digital innovations such as rapid prototyping and stereolithography open up a new avenue of research and represent the next steps in indirect technique development. Individual 3D transfers are convenient in difficult clinical cases and can improve the effectiveness of the procedure, reduce the number of technical stages and reduce total chairside time. This paper also summarizes the advancement in adhesive materials, including an overview of advantages and disadvantages of different types of bonding resins and of the mean shear bond strength (SBS) achieved in the indirect procedure.

Effects of different adhesion promoters and deproteinizing agents on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study

OBJECTIVE:

To evaluate the effects of different adhesion promoters, namely, Enhance LC, Ortho Solo, Assure Universal Bonding Resin and deproteinizing agents such as 5.25% NaOCl, 10% papain gel on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

MATERIALS AND METHOD:

The present study was approved by the Ethics Committee of Teerthanker Mahaveer Dental College and Research Centre, affiliated to Teerthanker Mahaveer University, Moradabad, India. Around 150 extracted sound human upper bicuspids were taken and divided into six groups. Group 1 control (37% H₃PO₄), Group 2 (37% H₃PO₄ + Ortho Solo), Group 3 (37% H₃PO₄ + Assure Universal Bonding Resin), Group 4 (37% H₃PO₄ + Enhance LC), Group 5 (5.25% NaOCl + 37% H₃PO₄), and Group 6 (10% papain gel + 37% H₃PO₄). In all the groups (n = 150) orthodontic metal brackets were bonded with Transbond^TM XT and all the samples were subjected for evaluation of shear bond strength using Instron universal testing machine at a cross speed of 0.5 mm/min. The bracket failure mode was examined using Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). The Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney test were used to compare the shear bond strength. The Chi-square test was used to determine significant differences in the ARI scores among the groups. The significance for all statistical tests was P < 0.05.

RESULTS:

Mean values of shear bond strength showed statistically significant differences between the evaluated groups (P < 0.005). The lowest and highest shear bond strength was attributed to Group 1 (control) and Group 2 (Ortho Solo), respectively. No statistically significant difference was noted for the mean ARI scores between control, adhesion promoters, and deproteinized group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION:

It was concluded that adhesion promoters and deproteinizing agents can be used to enhance the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Among all the groups Ortho Solo showed the highest bond strength when used with Transbond^TM XT.

Effect of surface treatment of prefabricated teeth on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Objective:

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the effects of grinding, drilling, sandblasting, and ageing prefabricated teeth (PfT) on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets, as well as the effects of surface treatments on the adhesive remnant index (ARI).

Methods:

One-hundred-ninety-two PfT were divided into four groups (n = 48): Group 1, no surface treatment was done; Group 2, grinding was performed with a cylindrical diamond bur; Group 3, two drillings were done with a spherical diamond bur; Group 4, sandblasting was performed with 50-µm aluminum oxide. Before the experiment, half of the samples stayed immersed in distilled water at 37^oC for 90 days. Brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and shear strength tests were carried out using a universal testing machine. SBS were compared by surface treatment and by ageing with two-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. ARI scores were compared between surface treatments with Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn’s test.

Results:

Surface treatments on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets (p< 0.01), result not observed with ageing (p= 0.45). Groups II, III, and IV showed higher SBS and greater ARI than the Group 1 (p< 0.05). SBS was greater in the groups 3 and 4 (drilling, sandblasting) than in the Group 2 (grinding) (p< 0.05). SBS and ARI showed a positive correlation (Spearman’s R²= 0.57; p< 0.05).

Conclusion:

Surface treatment on PfT enhanced SBS of brackets, however ageing did not show any relevance. Sandblasting and drilling showed greater SBS than grinding. There was a positive correlation between SBS and ARI.