Evaluation of different enamel conditioning techniques for orthodontic bonding / 대한치과교정학회지

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different enamel conditioning techniques for bracket bonding. METHODS: Ninety-one human premolars were randomly divided in six groups of 15 specimens each. The enamel surfaces of the teeth were etched with 35% orthophosphoric acid in Group 1, with a self-etching primer in Group 2, sandblasted in Group 3, sandblasted and etched with 35% orthophosphoric acid in Group 4, conditioned by Er:YAG laser in Group 5 and conditioned by Er:YAG laser and etched with 35% phosphoric acid gel respectively in Group 6. After enamel conditioning procedures, brackets were bonded and shear bonding test was performed. After debonding, adhesive remnant index scores were calculated for all groups. One tooth from each group were inspected by scanning electron microscope for evaluating the enamel surface characteristics. RESULTS: The laser and acid etched group showed the highest mean shear bond strength (SBS) value (13.61 +/- 1.14 MPa) while sandblasted group yielded the lowest value (3.12 +/- 0.61 MPa). CONCLUSIONS: Although the SBS values were higher, the teeth in laser conditioned groups were highly damaged. Therefore, acid etching and self-etching techniques were found to be safer for orthodontic bracket bonding. Sandblasting method was found to generate inadequate bonding strength.

Bond strength of different bonding systems to the lingual surface enamel of mandibular incisors / 대한치과교정학회지

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether different types of adhesive systems and enamel-protective agents will affect the tensile bond strength of lingual brackets. METHODS: A total of 75 extracted mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 5 groups and lingual brackets were bonded. Group 1 specimens received Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA), Group 2 required the application of a fluoride-releasing resin (Ortho-coat, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) with Transbond XT, Group 3 specimens received a chlorhexidine varnish (Cervitec Plus, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Lichtenstein) with Transbond XT. In Group 4, a light-cured orthodontic adhesive (Aegis Ortho, Bosworth, Skokie, USA) was applied and in Group 5, an antimicrobial self-etching primer (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) was used. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in bond strength whether fluoride-releasing resin or chlorhexidine varnish were used or not. Group 5 had significantly higher bond strength and adhesive remnant index (ARI) values than other groups (p < 0.001). The application of enamel-protective products did not have an adverse affect on the bond strength of lingual brackets. CONCLUSIONS: These products might provide benefits both for the patient and the clinician, by supporting the oral hygiene during lingual orthodontic treatment. The higher ARI score may be beneficial for Clearfil Protect Bond but its excessive bond strength should be considered in clinical practice, especially where the enamel is thin.