Top

Clinical Oral Investigations

Published in:

01-06-2021 | Original Article

Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance

Authors: Ufuk Ok, Sertac Aksakalli, Elif Eren, Nourtzan Kechagia

Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations | Issue 6/2021

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate the clinical and in vitro performance of single-component orthodontic adhesives under metal brackets.

Materials and methods

Bimaxillary orthodontic treatment was required for sixty patients and 60 premolar teeth were divided into three groups (n: 20). The single-component orthodontic adhesives Biofix and GC Ortho Connect (GC) that did not require primers were compared to the control group using Transbond XT, which was applied with a primer. For each patient, total bonding time was measured. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI_(Bracket)) score was noted over 12 months. In vitro tests were used to evaluate specimens, shear bond strength (SBS), ARI_(Bracket), and Enamel Surface Index (ESI). After in vitro debonding, the enamel surface and bracket base were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX).

Results

Clinical failure rate with primer was 9.0%, while it was 8.0 and 10.0 for GC and Biofix, respectively. The mean in vitro SBS values of the Biofix, GC, and Transbond XT groups were 8.21, 8.07, and 7.37 MPa, respectively. There were no statistically differences in clinical failure (p = 0.160) and SBS values (p = 0.158). Mean differences in bond-up time per jaw were 9.65, 10.51, and 11.97 min, which were statistically significant (p = 0.0001).

Conclusion

Single-component adhesives had acceptable SBS values and enamel effects according to SEM-EDX analysis. Clinically, bonding failure was not shown statistically inferior to bonding with primer. There was also a significant difference in bond-up times.

Clinical relevance

Considering an intensely working clinic with bonding processes for at least two jaws per day, this means a saving of the chair time of 1 patient per week. However, better saliva contamination and moisture control with lack of the primer stage and, thereby, an acceptable bracket failure rate will bring clinically significant results with less chair time for clinicians.

Nandhra SS, Littlewood SJ, Houghton N, Luther F, Prabhu J, Munyombwe T, Wood SR (2015) Do we need primer for orthodontic bonding? A randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 37(2):147–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju024CrossRefPubMed

Jörgensen KD, Shimokobe H (1975) Adaptation of resinous restorative materials to acid etched enamel surfaces. Scand J Dent Res 83(1):31–36PubMed

Prévost AP, Fuller JL, Peterson LC (1984) Composite and intermediate resin tag formation in acid-etched enamel: a scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Prosthet Dent 52(2):204–207. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(84)90096-9CrossRefPubMed

O’Brien KD, Watts DC, Read MJ (1991) Light cured direct bonding--is it necessary to use a primer? Eur J Orthod 13(1):22–26CrossRef

Tang AT, Bjorkman L, Adamczak E, Andlin-Sobocki A, Ekstrand J (2000) In vitro shear bond strength of orthodontic bondings without liquid resin. Acta Odontol Scand 58(1):44–48CrossRef

Lou L, Heo G, Nelson AE, Alsagheer A, Carey JP, Major PW (2009) Chemical composition of enamel surface as a predictor of in-vitro shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 136(5):683–688. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.12.029CrossRef

Banks PA, Richmond S (1994) Enamel sealants: a clinical evaluation of their value during fixed appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod 16(1):19–25. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/16.1.19CrossRefPubMed

https://patents.google.com/patent/US20140336297A1/en. Accessed 13 Nov 2014

Rasmussen MJ, Togrye C, Trojan TM, Tantbirojn D, Versluis A (2020)Post-gel shrinkage, elastic modulus, and stress generated by orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 90(2):278–284. https://doi.org/10.2319/032719-233.1CrossRefPubMed

10.

Jandt KD, Sigusch BW (2009) Future perspectives of resin-based dental materials. Dent Mater 25(8):1001–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.02.009CrossRefPubMed

11.

Sarrett DC (2005) Clinical challenges and the relevance of materials testing for posterior composite restorations. Dent Mater 21(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2004.10.001CrossRefPubMed

12.

Alania Y, Chiari MD, Rodrigues MC, Arana-Chavez VE, Bressiani AH, Vichi FM et al (2016) Bioactive composites containing TEGDMA-functionalized calcium phosphate particles: degree of conversion, fracture strength and ion release evaluation. Dent Mater 32(12):e374–ee81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2016.09.021CrossRefPubMed

13.

Sideridou I, Tserki V, Papanastasiou G (2003) Study of water sorption, solubility and modulus of elasticity of light-cured dimethacrylate-based dental resins. Biomaterials. 24(4):655–665. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-9612(02)00380-0CrossRefPubMed

14.

Gange P (2015) The evolution of bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 147(4 Suppl):S56–S63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.011CrossRef

15.

Elkalza AR, Mostafa D (2019) Laboratory evaluation of shear bond strength of three different bonding systems for orthodontic brackets. Egypt Orthodontic J 53(6):55–60. https://doi.org/10.21608/EOS.2018.77121

16.

Bazargani F, Magnuson A, Löthgren H, Kowalczyk A (2016) Orthodontic bonding with and without primer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod 38(5):503–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv075CrossRefPubMed

17.

Ewoldsen N, Demke RS (2001) A review of orthodontic cements and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 120(1):45–48. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.117207CrossRef

18.

Pont HB, Ozcan M, Bagis B, Ren Y (2010) Loss of surface enamel after bracket debonding: an in-vivo and ex-vivo evaluation. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 138(4):387 e1–387 e9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2010.01.028CrossRef

19.

Sagir S, Usumez A, Ademci E, Usumez S (2013) Effect of enamel laser irradiation at different pulse settings on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 83(6):973–980. https://doi.org/10.2319/111412-872.1CrossRefPubMed

20.

Jurubeba JEP, Costa AR, Correr-Sobrinho L, Tubel CAM, Correr AB, Vedovello SA, Crepaldi MV, Vedovello Filho M (2017) Influence of thermal cycles number on bond strength of metallic brackets to ceramic. Braz Dent J 28(2):206–209. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201701217CrossRefPubMed

21.

Pamukçu H, Özsoy Ö (2016) Indirect bonding revisited. Turk J Orthod 29(3):80–86. https://doi.org/10.5152/TurkJOrthod.2016.16023CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

22.

Howell S, Weekes WT (1990) An electron microscopic evaluation of the enamel surface subsequent to various debonding procedures. Aust Dent J 35(3):245–252CrossRef

23.

Ibrahim AI, Thompson VP, Deb S (2019) A novel etchant system for orthodontic bracket bonding. Sci Rep 9(1):9579. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-45980-9CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Sirisha K, Rambabu T, Ravishankar Y, Ravikumar P (2014) Validity of bond strength tests: a critical review-part II. J Conserv Dent 17(5):420–426. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.139823CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Rasmussen ST, Patchin RE (1984) Fracture properties of human enamel and dentin in an aqueous environment. J Dent Res 63(12):1362–1368. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345840630120501CrossRefPubMed

26.

Holberg C, Winterhalder P, Holberg N, Wichelhaus A, Rudzki-Janson I (2014) Orthodontic bracket debonding: risk of enamel fracture. Clin Oral Investig 18(1):327–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-013-0969-4CrossRefPubMed

27.

Lowder PD, Foley T, Banting DW (2008) Bond strength of 4 orthodontic adhesives used with a caries-protective resin sealant. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 134(2):291–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.002CrossRef

28.

Braga RR, Meira JB, Boaro LC, Xavier TA (2010) Adhesion to tooth structure: a critical review of “macro” test methods. Dent Mater 26(2):e38–e49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.150CrossRefPubMed

29.

Gray LP (1975) Results of 310 cases of rapid maxillary expansion selected for medical reasons. J Laryngol Otol 89(6):601–614. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022215100080804CrossRefPubMed

30.

Katona TR (1997) A comparison of the stresses developed in tension, shear peel, and torsion strength testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 112(3):244–251. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70251-8CrossRef

31.

Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC (2001) A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. J Orthod 28(4):301–305. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/28.4.301CrossRefPubMed

32.

Thomas RL, de Rijk WG, Evans CA (1999) Tensile and shear stresses in the orthodontic attachment adhesive layer with 3D finite element analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 116(5):530–532. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70184-8CrossRef

33.

Van Noort R, Noroozi S, Howard IC, Cardew G (1989) A critique of bond strength measurements. J Dent 17(2):61–67CrossRef

34.

Shiau JY, Rasmussen ST, Phelps AE, Enlow DH, Wolf GR (1993) Analysis of the “shear” bond strength of pretreated aged composites used in some indirect bonding techniques. J Dent Res 72(9):1291–1297. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345930720090601CrossRefPubMed

35.

Marc MG, Bazert C, Attal JP (2018) Bond strength of pre-coated flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets. An in vitro comparative study on the second mandibular premolars. Int Orthod 16(3):425–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2018.06.017CrossRefPubMed

36.

Russell JS, Littlewood SJ, Blance A, Mitchell L (2008) The efficacy of a plasma arc light in orthodontic bonding: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod 35(3):202–209; discussion 175. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531207225022635CrossRefPubMed

37.

Tavas MA, Watts DC (1979) Bonding of orthodontic brackets by transillumination of a light activated composite: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 6(4):207–208. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.6.4.207CrossRefPubMed

38.

Ferguson JW, Read MJ, Watts DC (1984) Bond strengths of an integral bracket-base combination: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 6(4):267–276. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/6.4.267CrossRefPubMed

39.

Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG (1988) A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of directly bonded brackets using etch times of 15 or 60 seconds, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (94):476-483

40.

Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B (1999) 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. Clin Orthod Res 2(4):186–193CrossRef

41.

Banks P, Macfarlane TV (2007) Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod 34(2):128–136; discussion 11-2. https://doi.org/10.1179/146531207225022032CrossRefPubMed

42.

Mohammed RE, Abass S, Abubakr NH, Mohammed ZM (2016) Comparing orthodontic bond failures of light-cured composite resin with chemical-cured composite resin: a 12-month clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 150(2):290–294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2016.02.013CrossRef

43.

Carstensen W (1986) Clinical results after direct bonding of brackets using shorter etching times. Am J Orthod 89(1):70–72CrossRef

44.

Versluis A, Douglas WH, Sakaguchi RL (1996) Thermal expansion coefficient of dental composites measured with strain gauges. Dent Mater 12(5):290–294CrossRef

45.

Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T (2004) In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect-bonding resins. Angle Orthod 74(3):405–409. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2004)0742.0.CO;2CrossRefPubMed

46.

Moninuola AE, Costa OO, Isiekwe MC (2010) A review of orthodontic bond failure using a chemical cure adhesive. Odontostomatol Trop 33(130):35–40PubMed

47.

Hadrous R, Bouserhal J, Osman E (2019) Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic molar tubes bonded using hydrophilic primers: an in vitro study. Int Orthod 17:461–468. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2019.06.006CrossRefPubMed

48.

Akhoundi MSA, Etemadi A, Nasiri M, Borujeni ES (2017) Comparison of enamel morphologic characteristics after conditioning with various combinations of acid etchant and Er:YAG laser in bonding and rebonding procedures: a SEM analysis. J Dent (Tehran) 14(3):144–152

49.

Issar R, Mazumdar D, Ranjan S, Krishna NK, Kole R, Singh P et al (2016) Comparative evaluation of the etching pattern of Er,Cr:YSGG & acid etching on extracted human teeth-an ESEM analysis. J Clin Diagn Res 10(5):ZC01–ZC05. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/19739.7705CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

50.

Jendresen MD, Glantz PO, Baier RE, Eick JD (1981) Microtopography and clinical adhesiveness of an acid etched tooth surface. An in-vivo study. Acta Odontol Scand 39(1):47–53CrossRef

51.

Jendresen MD, Glantz PO (1981) Clinical adhesiveness of selected dental materials. An in-vivo study. Acta Odontol Scand 39(1):39–45CrossRef

52.

Bazargani F, Jacobson S, Lennartsson B (2012) A comparative evaluation of lingual retainer failure bonded with or without liquid resin. Angle Orthod 82(1):84–87. https://doi.org/10.2319/032811-222.1CrossRefPubMed

53.

Tang AT, Björkman L, Lindbäck KF, Andlin-Sobocki A, Ekstrand J (2000) Retrospective study of orthodontic bonding without liquid resin. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 118(3):300–306CrossRef

54.

Bhandari DPK, Anbuselvan GJ, Karthi M (2019) Evaluation of resin penetration depth in enamel surface for orthodontic bonding exposed to five types of enamel conditioning methods: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 11(Suppl 2):S221–S2S7. https://doi.org/10.4103/JPBS.JPBS_301_18CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

55.

Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ (2001) Effect of a self-etchprimer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 119(6):621–624. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.113269CrossRef

56.

Kaur T, Tripathi T, Rai P, Kanase A (2017) SEM evaluation of enamel surface changes and enamel microhardness around orthodontic brackets after application of CO. J Clin Diagn Res 11(9):ZC59–ZC63. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/30292.10603CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

57.

Zarrinnia K, Eid NM, Kehoe MJ (1995) The effect of different debonding techniques on the enamel surface: an in vitro qualitative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 108(3):284–293CrossRef

58.

Eminkahyagil N, Arman A, Cetinsahin A, Karabulut E (2006) Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. Angle Orthod 76(2):314–321. https://doi.org/10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0314:EORMOE]2.0.CO;2CrossRefPubMed

59.

Stratmann U, Schaarschmidt K, Wegener H, Ehmer U (1996) The extent of enamel surface fractures. A quantitative comparison of thermally debonded ceramic and mechanically debonded metal brackets by energy dispersive micro- and image-analysis. Eur J Orthod 18(6):655–662CrossRef

60.

Stefański T, Kloc-Ptaszna A, Postek-Stefańska L (2019) The effect of simulated erosive conditions on the frictional behavior of different orthodontic bracket-wire combinations. Dent Med Probl 56(2):173–177. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/105832CrossRefPubMed

61.

Moradi M, Hormozi E, Shamohammadi M, Rakhshan V (2018) Effects of debonding of orthodontic brackets on topography and surface roughness of composite restorations. Int Orthod 16(4):623–637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2018.09.017CrossRefPubMed

Title: Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance
Authors: Ufuk Ok
Sertac Aksakalli
Elif Eren
Nourtzan Kechagia
Publication date: 01-06-2021
Publisher: Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in: Clinical Oral Investigations / Issue 6/2021
Print ISSN: 1432-6981
Electronic ISSN: 1436-3771
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03729-z

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Springer Medicine

Abstract

Objectives

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Clinical relevance

Please log in to get access to this content

Other articles of this Issue 6/2021

Clinical variables associated with the presence of articular pain in patients with temporomandibular joint clicking

Detection of Streptococcus mutans in symptomatic and asymptomatic infected root canals

Experimental peri-implantitis around titanium implants with a chemically modified surface with a monolayer of multi-phosphonate molecules: a preclinical in vivo investigation

Microscopic and chemical evaluation of the filling quality of five obturation techniques in oval-shaped root canals

Palatal growth changes in newborns with unilateral and bilateral cleft lip and palate from birth until 12 months after early neonatal cheiloplasty using morphometric assessment

Multivariate analysis of the influence of peri-implant clinical parameters and local factors on radiographic bone loss in the posterior maxilla: a retrospective study on 277 dental implants