Flexural and fatigue strengths of denture base resin.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM: Mechanical properties of denture acrylic resins are important for the clinical success of multiple types of prostheses. Acrylic resins must be strong and resilient so as to withstand impact. Few studies utilize cyclic loads to characterize material response to repeated stress. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate static and dynamic flexure properties of a variety of acrylic resins utilized in the fabrication of prostheses: (1) heat-polymerized polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), powder-liquid type, and (2) a newly introduced, visible light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate dough type. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty rectangular bars each of 4 PMMA acrylic resin materials (Diamond D, Fricke HI-I, Lucitone 199, Nature-Cryl Hi-Plus) and 1 urethane dimethacrylate (Eclipse) were fabricated and stored in 100% humidity for 30 days. Half of the specimens for each group were submitted to a static 3-point flexure test. The other half was submitted to cycling loading at 5 Hz for 10(4) cycles. Data were analyzed using 1-way ANOVA and 2-way ANOVA, followed by Tukey HSD or Bonferroni post hoc tests when necessary (alpha=.05). RESULTS: Mean static flexure strength (SDs) in MPa were: Eclipse, 127.11 (5.83); Diamond D, 84.92 (5.10); Lucitone 199, 83.96 (11.96); HI-I, 79.54 (5.84); and Nature-Cryl Hi-Plus, 75.82 (6.96). Mean flexural strengths (SDs) in MPa postcycling were: Eclipse, 113.36 (31.29); Diamond D, 88.26 (5.46); Nature-Cryl Hi-Plus, 81.86 (4.93); HI-I, 79.18 (6.60); and Lucitone 199, 74.34 (4.95). CONCLUSIONS: The visible light-polymerized urethane dimethacrylate resin (Eclipse) showed greater flexure strength than all PMMA heat-polymerized resins for both static and cycled groups (P<.001). Yet the Eclipse material had lower load limits, and demonstrated brittle-type behavior and greater standard deviations. The heat-polymerized PMMA materials did not significantly differ from each other after static or cyclic testing.

Effect of self-etchant pH on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

INTRODUCTION: Self-etching primers (SEPs) have been used successfully during bonding to reduce technique sensitivity while minimizing the etching of enamel. Although serving the same purpose, SEPs differ in acidity and aggressiveness. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the pH of SEPs affects the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. METHODS: Forty-five molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into 3 groups with different SEPs: in group 1 (control), 15 orthodontic brackets were bonded to the teeth with Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) with a pH of about 1.0; in group 2, 15 brackets were bonded with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) with a pH of 0.9 to 1.0; in group 3, 15 brackets were bonded with Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray America, New York, NY), with a pH of 2.7. All teeth were bonded with Transbond XT paste (3M Unitek). The teeth were debonded within half an hour after initial bonding by using a universal testing machine. The residual adhesive on each tooth was evaluated. ANOVA was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the 3 groups, and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the 3 groups. RESULTS: ANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups. The Duncan multiple range test indicated that Clearfil S3 Bond produced a significantly stronger mean SBS (6.5 +/- 1.9 MPa) than the Transbond Plus system (mean, 4.2 +/- 1.9 MPa). No significant differences were seen between the SBS of the brackets bonded with Adper (mean, 5.9 +/- 3.4 MPa) and the other 2 groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores between the 3 groups indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different. CONCLUSIONS: The SEP with the highest pH (least acidic), Clearfil S3 Bond, bonded brackets successfully and with the strongest SBS; this suggests that the pH of the SEP is not the primary determinant of the SBS. The clinician should be aware that some SEPs can leave the enamel surface healthier after debonding.

Shear bond strength of a new high fluoride release glass ionomer adhesive.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the shear bond strength of a new resin glass ionomer adhesive with higher fluoride release properties when bonding orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted human molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleaned and polished. The teeth were randomly separated into three groups according to the enamel conditioner/etchant and adhesive used. Group I: 20 teeth conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group II: 20 teeth conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group III (control): 20 teeth etched with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with a composite adhesive. RESULTS: The results of the analysis of variance comparing the three experimental groups (F = 10.294) indicated the presence of significant differences between the three groups (P = .0001). The shear bond strengths were significantly lower in the two groups bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive whether conditioned with polyacrylic acid ( x = 3.2 +/- 1.8 MPa) or phosphoric acid (x = 2.3 +/- 1.1 MPa), while the mean shear bond strength of the composite adhesive was 5.2 +/- 2.9 MPa. CONCLUSIONS: Although the increased fluoride release from the new glass ionomer has the potential of decreasing decalcification around orthodontic brackets, the shear bond strength of the material is relatively low.

Enamel cracks and ceramic bracket failure during debonding in vitro.

OBJECTIVE: To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group 1, Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) pliers. In group 2, Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument (3M Unitek). For all teeth, the same bracket bonding system was used. Following debonding, teeth and brackets were examined under 10x magnification for assessment of bracket failure (fracture) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface. Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive, so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined. RESULTS: The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference (chi2 = 8.73; P = .013) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared. Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding. CONCLUSIONS: The hypothesis is rejected. Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups, the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture.

A new premixed self-etch adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVE: To determine if a new premixed self-etch adhesive can be used to successfully bond orthodontic brackets to enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, 20 teeth were conditioned using the self-etching primer Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). In group 2, 20 teeth were conditioned using a new premixed self-etching adhesive, AdheSE One (Ivoclar Vivadent Inc, Amherst, NY). Both groups were bonded using brackets precoated with a composite adhesive. The teeth were debonded within half an hour following initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the enamel surface was examined under 10x magnifications to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. A Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the Chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems. RESULTS: The mean SBS of the brackets bonded to the teeth using AdhesSE One was 3.6 +/- 1.3 MPa and was significantly lower (t = 2.80, P = .01) than the SBS of the brackets bonded using Transbond Plus (x = 5.9 +/- 3.2 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (chi2 = 19.26) indicated that bracket failure mode was also significantly different (P < .001), with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded using Transbond Plus. CONCLUSIONS: The SBS of the new premixed self-etching adhesive needs to be increased for it to be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets.

Three-dimensional culture environments enhance osteoblast differentiation.

PURPOSE: In previous work from our laboratory, we demonstrated that the three-dimensional (3D) cell cultures developed in simulated microgravity environments enhanced osseous-like aggregate formation and accelerated preosteoblast cell differentiation. Thus, as described here, we hypothesize that aggregate formation and mineralization would occur with fewer than 10 x 10(6) cells as previously described. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Human preosteoblastic cells were cultured at different concentrations in a rotary wall vessel to simulate microgravity for 7 days. Aggregate size was assessed, and mineralization and collagen expression detected using Von Kossa and Masson Trichrome staining. Scanning electron microscopy was used for structural and elemental analysis. Immunohistochemistry was used to detect expression of the osteogenic markers BSPII and osteopontin (OP). RESULTS: Size and calcium expression were dependent upon cultured cell number (p < 0.01). Calcium and collagen expression were detected throughout the aggregate, but organization was independent of cell number. Aggregates had similar microscopic structural patterns demonstrating organized development. Presence of BSPII and OP showed that the aggregates share common differentiation proteins with in vivo bone formation. CONCLUSIONS: These results may lead to novel bone engineering techniques associated with dental treatment.

A self-conditioner for resin-modified glass ionomers in bonding orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a new self-etch conditioner used with resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGIs) in bonding orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into three groups. In group 1 (control), 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer; in group 2, 20 brackets were bonded using an RMGI with a 10% polyacrylic acid conditioner. In group 3, 20 brackets were bonded using Fuji Ortho LC with a new no-rinse self-conditioner for RMGIs. The same bracket type was used on all groups. The teeth were debonded in shear mode using a universal testing machine, and the amount of residual adhesive remaining on each tooth was evaluated. Analysis of variance was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS), and the chi(2) test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in the SBS (P = .556) between the groups. The mean SBS for Transbond Plus was 8.6 +/- 2.6 MPa, for Fuji Ortho LC using 10% polyacrylic acid 9.1 +/- 4.6 MPa, and for Fuji Ortho LC using GC Self-conditioner 9.9 +/- 4.1 MPa. The comparisons of the ARI scores between the three groups (chi(2) = 35.5) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P < .001), with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded using Transbond. CONCLUSIONS: The new self-etch conditioner can be used with an RMGI to successfully bond brackets. In addition, brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC resulted in less residual adhesive remaining on the teeth.

Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a standardized thermocycling protocol on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive systems: a resin-modified glass ionomer and a composite resin used with a new self-etching primer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, brackets were bonded to the teeth using Fuji Ortho LC adhesive, and in group 2, the Transbond Plus system was used. The teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, thermocycled between 5 and 55 degrees C, and debonded using a universal testing machine. The enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. RESULTS: The mean SBS for the brackets bonded using the Fuji Ortho LC was 6.4 +/- 4.5 MPa, and the mean SBS for the Transbond Plus system was 6.1 +/- 3.2 MPa. The result of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.207) indicated that there was no significant difference (P = .837) between the two groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores (chi(2) = 0.195) indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different (P = .907) between the two adhesives. CONCLUSION: Although SBS and ARI scores were not significantly different for the two adhesives, clinicians need to take into consideration the other properties of the adhesives before using them.

The effect of modifying the self-etchant bonding protocol on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets when the self-etching primer (SEP) and the bracket adhesive are light cured either separately or simultaneously. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five human molars were randomly divided into five equal groups. Brackets precoated with Transbond XT composite adhesive were used. The five protocols were: Group 1 (control), the SEP Transbond Plus was applied, brackets placed, and adhesive light cured for 20 seconds; Group 2, SEP Adper Prompt L-Pop was applied, light cured, brackets placed, and light cured; Group 3, the same SEP as in Group 2 was used, however, the SEP and bracket adhesive were light cured together; Group 4, SEP Clearfil S3 Bond was applied, light cured, brackets placed, and light cured; and Group 5, the same SEP as in group 4 was used, however, the SEP and the adhesive were light cured together. The teeth were debonded using a universal testing machine, and the enamel was examined for residual adhesive. Analysis of variance was used to compare the SBS. RESULTS: The SBS of Clearfil S3 Bond after one light cure and two light cures were significantly greater than the bonds of brackets using Transbond Plus. Brackets bonded using Adper Prompt L-Pop after one light cure and two light cures were not significantly different from the other groups. The groups did not differ significantly in their bracket failure modes. CONCLUSION: Only one light curing application is needed to successfully bond brackets when using SEPs and adhesives. This approach can potentially reduce technique sensitivity as well as chair time.

Influence of self-etchant application time on bracket shear bond strength.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the influence of self-etching primer (SEP) application time on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. The same SEP, adhesive, and brackets were used in both groups. Twenty teeth were conditioned following the manufacturers' recommendations by rubbing the SEP on the enamel surface for 3 to 5 seconds. The remaining 20 teeth were conditioned using the same SEP, but the application time was increased to 15 seconds. The teeth were debonded within half an hour following initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth was determined. Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the chi2 test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems. RESULTS: The mean SBS of the brackets bonded to the teeth subjected to the SEP for 3 to 5 seconds was 8.0+/-4.6 MPa and was not significantly different (t=-0.69, P=.494) from the SBS of the brackets bonded using a 15-second SEP application time (x=8.9+/-3.4 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (chi2=2.16) indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different (P=.340) for both groups, and most failures were at the bracket-adhesive interface. CONCLUSION: The present findings indicate that increasing the SEP application from 3 to 5 seconds to 15 seconds does not result in a significant increase in SBS.

Evaluation of a new nano-filled restorative material for bonding orthodontic brackets.

AIM: To compare the shear bond strength of a nano-hybrid restorative material, Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), to that of a traditional adhesive material (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) when bonding orthodontic brackets. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups: 20 teeth were bonded with the Transbond adhesive system and the other 20 teeth with the Grandio restorative system, following manufacturer's instructions. Student t test was used to compare the shear bond strength of the 2 systems. Significance was predetermined at P 5 .05. RESULTS: The t test comparisons (t = 0.55) of the shear bond strength between the 2 adhesives indicated the absence of a significant (P = .585) difference. The mean shear bond strength for Grandio was 4.1 +/- 2.6 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. During debonding, 3 of 20 brackets (15%) bonded with Grandio failed without registering any force on the Zwick recording. None of the brackets bonded with Transbond XT had a similar failure mode. CONCLUSIONS: The newly introduced nano-filled composite materials can potentially be used to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth if its consistency can be more flowable to readily adhere to the bracket base.

Comparison of shear bond strength of two self-etch primer/adhesive systems.

Orthodontic brackets adhesive systems use three different agents, an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they combine the conditioning, priming, and adhesive agents into a single application. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of using one-step and two-step self-etch primer/adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to one of two protocols. Group I (control): a two-step self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system was used, Transbond Plus was applied to the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and light cured for 20 seconds. Group II: a one-step self-etch, self-adhesive resin cement system, Maxcem, was applied directly to the bracket. The self-etch primer/adhesive is made of two components that mix automatically during application. The brackets were then light cured for 20 seconds. The mean shear bond strength of the two-step acid-etch primer/adhesive was 5.9 +/- 2.7 Mpa and the mean for the one-step system was 3.1 +/- 1.7 MPa. The in vitro findings of this study indicated that the shear bond strengths (t = 3.79) of the two adhesive systems were significantly different (P = .001). One-step adhesive systems could potentially be advantageous for orthodontic purposes if their bond strength can be improved.

Early shear bond strength of a one-step self-adhesive on orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a self-adhesive universal cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), can be used successfully to bond orthodontic brackets to enamel. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups: 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using RelyX Unicem, and 20 brackets were bonded using the Transbond XT (3M Unitex, Monrovia, Calif) adhesive system. The teeth were debonded within 30 minutes after initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the chi-square test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems. RESULTS: The mean SBS of the brackets bonded using the RelyX Unicem was 3.7 +/- 2.1 MPa and was significantly lower (t = 2.07, P = .048) than the SBS of the brackets bonded with the Transbond system (x = 5.97 +/- 4.2 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (chi(2) = 17.4) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P = .002) with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded with Transbond XT. CONCLUSIONS: The SBS of the self-adhesive universal cement needs to be increased for it to be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets.

The effect of porcelain surface conditioning on bonding orthodontic brackets.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a new self-etching primer/ adhesive used to enhance the shear strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. Forty-five porcelain maxillary central incisor teeth were used in the study. The teeth were divided randomly into three groups: group I (control), the porcelain teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid followed by a sealant and the brackets were bonded with a composite adhesive; group II, the porcelain teeth were microetched and hydrofluoric acid and silane applied and metal brackets were then bonded with the composite adhesive; and group III, the porcelain teeth were etched with phosphoric acid and a self-etching primer/adhesive applied before bonding. Brackets precoated with the adhesive were used on all three groups of teeth. All teeth were stored for 24 hours at 37 degrees C before debonding. The results of the analysis of variance (F = 10.7) indicated that there was a significant difference (P = .001) between the three groups. The mean shear bond strengths of conventional bonding using a 37% phosphoric acid and sealant was 4.4 +/- 2.7 MPa, whereas that of microetching followed by the application of hydrofluoric acid and silane was 11.2 +/- 4.7 MPa, and for the new self-etching primer/adhesive it was 10.3 +/- 5.3 MPa. The last two groups had the highest bond strength values and were not significantly different from each other.

Effect of changing a test parameter on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of changing the crosshead speed of the testing machine on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel while standardizing all the other variables. Forty freshly extracted human molars were bonded using the Transbond XT adhesive system (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The teeth were randomly divided into two groups. In group I, the shear bond strength was measured at a crosshead speed of 5.0 mm/min, and in group II the shear bond strength was measured at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/ min. Within half an hour from the initial bonding of each tooth, an occlusogingival load was applied to the bracket, producing a shear force at the bracket-tooth interface. This was accomplished by using the flattened end of a steel rod attached to the crosshead of a Universal Test Machine (Zwick GmbH & Co, Ulm, Germany). The t-test results (t = 2.71) indicated that there was a significant difference (P = .014) in the shear bond strengths between the group tested at a crosshead speed of 5.0 mm/min and the group tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The mean shear bond strengths for the two groups were 7.0 +/- 4.6 MPa and 12.2 +/- 4.0 MPa, respectively. These findings indicated that it is important to identify the parameters included in shear bond testing in order to enable meaningful comparisons of the performance of different materials.

Effect of antimicrobial monomer-containing adhesive on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

A new antibacterial and fluoride-releasing bonding system consists of a self-etching primer that contains an antibacterial monomer and a bonding agent that contains sodium fluoride. This study was to determine the effect of using this new adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Forty molar teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Group 1 consisted of 20 teeth that were etched for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid, washed with a water spray for 10 seconds, and dried to a chalky white appearance, and the sealant was applied to the etched surface. The precoated brackets were placed on the teeth and light cured. Group 2 consisted of 20 teeth that were etched with 35% phosphoric acid for 15 seconds as suggested by the manufacturer when bonding to intact enamel. The teeth were washed with a water spray for 10 seconds and dried to a chalky white appearance, and the primer containing antibacterial monomer was applied to the etched surface, left for 20 seconds, and sprayed with a mild airstream. The adhesive was applied to each tooth, and the precoated bracket was placed and light cured. There were no significant differences (P = .220) in the shear bond strengths of the two groups. The mean shear bond strength for the antibacterial fluoride-releasing adhesive was 11.7 +/- 5.6 MPa and for the control was 9.6 +/- 5.0 MPa. The use of an antibacterial fluoride-releasing adhesive system did not affect the shear bond strength of the orthodontic brackets within the first half hour after initial bonding.

Waterline disinfectant effect on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether the use of an iodine compound for disinfecting the waterlines in dental units has an effect on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel. Forty molar teeth were divided randomly into two groups- group 1 control: twenty teeth were etched for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid, washed with a distilled water spray for 10 seconds, stored in distilled water for 5 minutes, dried to a chalky white appearance, and the sealant applied to the etched surface; group 2 experimental: twenty teeth were etched for 15 seconds with 35% phosphoric acid and washed for 10 seconds with water containing iodine. The teeth were stored for five minutes in the iodinated water, dried to a chalky white appearance, and the sealant applied to the etched surface as in the control group. Precoated brackets were placed on all the teeth and light cured for 20 seconds. All teeth were debonded within 30 minutes from the initial time of bonding. The t-test results (t = 1.74) indicated that there were no significant (P = .09) differences in the shear bond strengths of the teeth that were washed and immersed in the iodine solution and the control group in which distilled water was used. The mean shear bond strengths for the two groups were 6.5 +/- 3.5 MPa and 4.7 +/- 3.1 MPa, respectively.

The use of Ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets.

As new adhesives, composite resins, and bonding techniques were introduced, orthodontists adopted some of these innovations and added them to their armamentarium. The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive materials; one with an organically modified ceramic matrix, Admira (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and another that contains the traditional Bis GMA matrix namely Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The new materials have a lower wear rate and are more biocompatible than traditional composites. Forty molar teeth were randomly divided into two groups: 20 teeth bonded with the Transbond adhesive system and the other 20 teeth with the Admira bonding system. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS of the two adhesives. Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05. The results of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.489) of the SBS indicated that there was no significant (P = .628) difference between the two adhesives tested. The mean SBS for Admira was 5.1 +/- 3.3 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. It was concluded that the new material, Ormocer, which is an organically modified ceramic restorative material can potentially have orthodontic applications if available in a more flowable paste. These new materials are more biocompatible and have lower wear rate including bonding orthodontic brackets to teeth.

Comparison of bonding time and shear bond strength between a conventional and a new integrated bonding system.

Conventional adhesive systems use 3 different agents, an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin during the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel. A characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application as well as precoat the bracket with the adhesive in an attempt to save time during the bonding procedure. This study compared the total bonding time and shear bond strength (SBS) of 2 bracket-bonding systems: (1) an integrated system that incorporates a self-etching primer and precoated brackets and (2) a conventional system in which the etchant and primer are applied separately and the adhesive applied to the bracket by the clinician. The results of the SBS and the total bonding time comparisons (t = 3.451) of the 2 adhesive systems showed a significant difference (P = .0001). The mean SBS was 9.4+/-3.7 MPa for the new bonding system and 6.2+/-4.4 MPa for the conventional system. The mean total bonding time was 36.5 s/tooth for the new system and 46.7 s/tooth for the conventional system. The clinician has to decide whether the increase in bond strength, the decrease in the total bonding time, and the steps saved during the bonding procedure with the new bonding system balance the increased cost incurred.

Bonding orthodontic brackets to porcelain using different adhesives/enamel conditioners: a comparative study.

AIM: To evaluate the use of new adhesive/primer materials, including an experimental self-etch primer and a cyanocrylate adhesive, to enhance the shear strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surfaces. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Sixty porcelain maxillary central incisor teeth were used. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups: group 1, teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid and the brackets were bonded with a composite adhesive; group 2, teeth were microetched, hydrofluoric acid and silane applied, and then the brackets were bonded with a composite adhesive; group 3, an acid-etch primer was used, then the brackets were bonded with the same composite adhesive as in the first 2 groups; group 4, teeth were etched with 35% phosphoric acid and the brackets were bonded with the cyanoacrylate adhesive. RESULTS: The analysis of variance comparing the groups tested (F = 9.446) indicated that there was a significant difference between the 4 groups. The cyanoacrylate adhesive had the lowest shear bond strength (mean = 1.7 +/- 2.1 MPa), followed by the conventional bonding using a 37% phosphoric acid etch and composite (mean = 2.1 +/- 1.2 MPa). The use of Transbond after microetching, with the application of hydrofluoric acid and silane, provided the highest shear bond strength (mean = 5.5 +/- 2.7 MPa). Transbond used with the acid etch-primer had a lower bond strength (mean = 3.8 +/- 2.5 MPa), but was not significantly different from the microetch/hydrofluoric acid/silane group. CONCLUSION: The results indicated that the use of a phosphoric acid etch with either a cyanoacrylate or composite adhesive to bond orthodontic brackets to porcelain surfaces produced significantly lower shear bond strength. Self-etch primers produced higher but less consistent shear bond strength for bonding orthodontic brackets. The most reliable bonding procedure to porcelain surfaces is through microetching with the use of hydrofluoric acid and a silane coupler before bonding, but this also produces the greatest damage to the porcelain surface.