Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Odontology 1/2014

01-01-2014 | Original Article

Repeated bonding of fixed retainer increases the risk of enamel fracture

Authors: Netrporn Chinvipas, Yuh Hasegawa, Kazuto Terada

Published in: Odontology | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate the influences of repeated bonding, using 2 different orthodontic adhesive systems, on the shear bond strength (SBS) and the enamel surface morphology. Sixty premolars were divided into 2 groups (n = 30), and either Transbond XT (T group) or Fuji Ortho LC (F group) adhesives were used. SBS was measured 24 h after bonding, using a universal testing machine. Then, the enamel surfaces were investigated and the mode of failure was described using adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. After each debonding, 10 teeth from each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy to determine the penetration of adhesives, the length of resin tags, and the state of the enamel surface. The other teeth were subjected to two more bonding/debonding procedures. In T group, the second debonding sequences had significantly higher bond strengths than the other sequences. The length of resin tags was greatest in the second debonding sequence, although there was no significant difference. In F group, the SBS increased with further rebonding and the failure mode tended towards cohesive failure. In both groups, the ARI scores increased with rebonding. Enamel loss could have occurred with both adhesives, although the surfaces appeared unchanged to the naked eye. From this study, we suggest that enamel damage caused by repeated bonding is of concern. To prevent bond failure, we should pay attention to the adhesion method used for bondable retainers.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1967;53:721–45.PubMedCrossRef Reitan K. Clinical and histologic observations on tooth movement during and after orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod. 1967;53:721–45.PubMedCrossRef
2.
go back to reference Wong PM, Freer TJ. A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Orthod J. 2004;20:99–106.PubMed Wong PM, Freer TJ. A comprehensive survey of retention procedures in Australia and New Zealand. Aust Orthod J. 2004;20:99–106.PubMed
3.
go back to reference Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1. Results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36:553–68.PubMed Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1. Results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 2002;36:553–68.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:440–8.PubMedCrossRef Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:440–8.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Beam DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:207–13.CrossRef Beam DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995;108:207–13.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Paulson RC. A functional rationale for routine maxillary bonded retention. Angle Orthod. 1992;62:223–6.PubMed Paulson RC. A functional rationale for routine maxillary bonded retention. Angle Orthod. 1992;62:223–6.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:470–4.PubMedCrossRef Taner T, Aksu M. A prospective clinical evaluation of mandibular lingual retainer survival. Eur J Orthod. 2012;34:470–4.PubMedCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH. Breakage incidence with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod. 1999;26:191–4.PubMedCrossRef Lumsden KW, Saidler G, McColl JH. Breakage incidence with direct-bonded lingual retainers. Br J Orthod. 1999;26:191–4.PubMedCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:435–41.PubMed Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:435–41.PubMed
10.
go back to reference Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A three-year follow up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19:501–9.PubMedCrossRef Artun J, Spadafora AT, Shapiro PA. A three-year follow up study of various types of orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers. Eur J Orthod. 1997;19:501–9.PubMedCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25:619–30.PubMed Dahl EH, Zachrisson BU. Long-term experience with direct-bonded lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod. 1991;25:619–30.PubMed
12.
go back to reference Zachrisson BU. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1995;28:39–48. Zachrisson BU. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1995;28:39–48.
13.
go back to reference Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire–composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111:67–74.PubMedCrossRef Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire–composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;111:67–74.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Abdullah MA, Al-Mutairi TK, Hakami ZW, Al-Malki MM. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a comparison of initial bond strength of different wire-and-composite combination. J Orofacial Orthop. 2010;71:290–9.CrossRef Abdullah MA, Al-Mutairi TK, Hakami ZW, Al-Malki MM. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a comparison of initial bond strength of different wire-and-composite combination. J Orofacial Orthop. 2010;71:290–9.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Valletta R, Prisco D, De Santis R, Ambrosio L, Martina R. Evaluation of the debonding strength of orthodontic brackets using three different bonding systems. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:571–7.PubMedCrossRef Valletta R, Prisco D, De Santis R, Ambrosio L, Martina R. Evaluation of the debonding strength of orthodontic brackets using three different bonding systems. Eur J Orthod. 2007;29:571–7.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Summers A, Kao E, Gilmore J, Gunel E, Ngan P. Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126:200–6.PubMedCrossRef Summers A, Kao E, Gilmore J, Gunel E, Ngan P. Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;126:200–6.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:333–40.PubMedCrossRef Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:333–40.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8.
19.
go back to reference Tavas MA, Watts DC. A visible light activated direct bonding material: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod. 1984;11:33–7.PubMed Tavas MA, Watts DC. A visible light activated direct bonding material: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod. 1984;11:33–7.PubMed
20.
go back to reference Waters NE. Some mechanical and physical properties of teeth. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1980;34:99–135.PubMed Waters NE. Some mechanical and physical properties of teeth. Symp Soc Exp Biol. 1980;34:99–135.PubMed
21.
go back to reference Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, Kumar MK, Gopal T. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3:22–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef Nujella BPS, Choudary MT, Reddy SP, Kumar MK, Gopal T. Comparison of shear bond strength of aesthetic restorative materials. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012;3:22–6.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Regan D, Noort RV. Bond strengths of two integral bracket-base combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil-mesh. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:144–53.PubMed Regan D, Noort RV. Bond strengths of two integral bracket-base combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil-mesh. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:144–53.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Torii Y, Hikasa R, Iwata S, Nishitani Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin-enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self-etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:528–33.PubMedCrossRef Torii Y, Hikasa R, Iwata S, Nishitani Y. Enamel tensile bond strength and morphology of resin-enamel interface created by acid etching system with or without moisture and self-etching priming system. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:528–33.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fjeld M, Ogaard B. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;130:575–81.CrossRef Fjeld M, Ogaard B. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of enamel surfaces exposed to 3 orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;130:575–81.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Chung CH, Cuozzo PT, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:52–4.PubMedCrossRef Chung CH, Cuozzo PT, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999;115:52–4.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Leas TJ, Hondrum S. The effect of rebonding on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets—a comparison of two clinical techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:200–1. Leas TJ, Hondrum S. The effect of rebonding on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets—a comparison of two clinical techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;103:200–1.
27.
go back to reference Kawasaki M, Hayakawa T, Takizawa T, Sirirungrojying S, Saitoh K, Kasai K. Assessing the performance of a methyl methacrylate-based resin cement with self-etching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:702–9.PubMed Kawasaki M, Hayakawa T, Takizawa T, Sirirungrojying S, Saitoh K, Kasai K. Assessing the performance of a methyl methacrylate-based resin cement with self-etching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2003;73:702–9.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:463–9.PubMed Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod. 1999;69:463–9.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, Ziebolz D. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:1036–44.PubMedCrossRef Knosel M, Mattysek S, Jung K, Sadat-Khonsari R, Kubein-Meesenburg D, Bauss O, Ziebolz D. Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:1036–44.PubMedCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Melsen B, Scribante A. A 12 month clinical study of bond failures of recycled versus new stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:449–54.PubMedCrossRef Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Melsen B, Scribante A. A 12 month clinical study of bond failures of recycled versus new stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 2004;26:449–54.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 1: wetting with water. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:29–36.PubMed Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 1: wetting with water. Clin Orthod Res. 1998;1:29–36.PubMed
32.
go back to reference Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva. Clinical Orthod Res. 1999;2:186–93. Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva. Clinical Orthod Res. 1999;2:186–93.
Metadata
Title
Repeated bonding of fixed retainer increases the risk of enamel fracture
Authors
Netrporn Chinvipas
Yuh Hasegawa
Kazuto Terada
Publication date
01-01-2014
Publisher
Springer Japan
Published in
Odontology / Issue 1/2014
Print ISSN: 1618-1247
Electronic ISSN: 1618-1255
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-012-0095-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Odontology 1/2014 Go to the issue