Literature DB >> 15316475

Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study.

Andrew Summers1, Elizabeth Kao, Jeffrey Gilmore, Erdogan Gunel, Peter Ngan.   

Abstract

The objectives of this study were (1) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive (Fuji Ortho LC; GC America, Alsip, Ill) after conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive (Light Bond; Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill) bonded with 37% phosphoric acid, (2) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives, (3) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI), and (4) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid, with scanning electron microscopy. In the in vitro study, 50 extracted premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups: brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours. Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test. The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were randomly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique. Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years. Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function. The in vitro study results showed significant differences (P <.05) among the adhesives and the debond times. Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours (18.46 +/- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 +/- 1.85 MPa) and 30 minutes (16.19 +/- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 +/- 1.93 MPa). Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive (4.9 vs 4.1). For the in vivo study, no significant differences in failure rate, sex, or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives. These results suggest that, compared with conventional resin, brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro. However, similar survival rates of the 2 materials studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinically. The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316475     DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.06.013

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop        ISSN: 0889-5406            Impact factor:   2.650


  18 in total

Review 1.  Retention of orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified GIC versus composite resin adhesives--a quantitative systematic review of clinical trials.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal; Avijit Banerjee
Journal:  Clin Oral Investig       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 3.573

2.  Shear bond strength of an experimental composite bracket.

Authors:  Zhe-chen Zhang; Russell Giordano; Gang Shen; L Lee Chou; Yu-fen Qian
Journal:  J Orofac Orthop       Date:  2013-06-28       Impact factor: 1.938

3.  Repeated bonding of fixed retainer increases the risk of enamel fracture.

Authors:  Netrporn Chinvipas; Yuh Hasegawa; Kazuto Terada
Journal:  Odontology       Date:  2012-12-14       Impact factor: 2.634

4.  Comparison of Self-Etch Primers with Conventional Acid Etching System on Orthodontic Brackets.

Authors:  Amit Zope; Yogita Zope-Khalekar; Shrikant S Chitko; Veerendra V Kerudi; Harshal Ashok Patil; Prasad Vasudeo Bonde; Pratik Jaltare; Siddhesh G Dolas
Journal:  J Clin Diagn Res       Date:  2016-12-01

5.  Effects of Ozone and Prophylactic Antimicrobial Applications on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets.

Authors:  Özer Alkan; Burcu Oktay Çöven; Betül Özçopur; Fatih Kazancı; Yeşim Kaya; Cihan Aydoğan; Gürcan Eskitaşçıoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2017-12-01

6.  Impulse debracketing compared to conventional debonding.

Authors:  Michael Knösel; Simone Mattysek; Klaus Jung; Reza Sadat-Khonsari; Dietmar Kubein-Meesenburg; Oskar Bauss; Dirk Ziebolz
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2010-11       Impact factor: 2.079

7.  Assessment of Streptococcus mutans biofilms on orthodontic adhesives over 7 days.

Authors:  Benjamin J Schneider; Rochelle D Hiers; G Frans Currier; Onur Kadioglu; Sarah E Johnston; Yan D Zhao; Fernando L Esteban Florez; Sharukh S Khajotia
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2021-06-03       Impact factor: 2.711

8.  Influence of different tooth types on the bond strength of two orthodontic adhesive systems.

Authors:  Bora Oztürk; Siddik Malkoç; Alp Erdin Koyutürk; Bülent Catalbas; Füsun Ozer
Journal:  Eur J Orthod       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 3.075

9.  A comparative evaluation of the retention of metallic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement under different enamel preparations: A pilot study.

Authors:  Padmaja Sharma; Ashima Valiathan; Ankit Arora; Sachin Agarwal
Journal:  Contemp Clin Dent       Date:  2013-04

10.  Orthodontic molar brackets: the effect of three different base designs on shear bond strength.

Authors:  Athol P Hudson; Sias R Grobler; Angela M P Harris
Journal:  Int J Biomed Sci       Date:  2011-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.