INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the shear/peel bond strength of metal brackets bonded to human enamel with differently cured bonded systems combined with an antibacterial adhesive component. METHODS: One hundred twenty extracted molars were divided into 3 groups. Stainless steel brackets were bonded with 1 of 3 systems: group 1, no-mix bonding adhesive (Unite, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n = 40); group 2, 2-paste chemically cured bonding resin (Concise, 3M Unitek) (n = 40); and group 3, light-cured adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek) (n = 40). Each bonding group was separated into experimental (n = 20) and control groups (n = 20). In the 3 experimental groups, an antibacterial self-etch adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kurary, Osaka, Japan) was also applied to the enamel. Specimens in the control groups were bonded only with their relevant bonding systems according to the manufacturers' instructions. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and thermocycled before testing. Debonded specimens were scored with the adhesive remnant index. RESULTS: The mean bond strengths (in megapascals) were 9.8 (control, 15.7) in group 1, 12.0 (control, 18.5) in group 2, and 11.6 (control, 12.4) in group 3. Statistical analysis with t tests showed no difference between group 3 and its control (P = .178), whereas groups 1 and 2 were statistically different from their controls (P = .000). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive can be combined with various bonding systems; achieved bond strengths were clinically more than satisfactory.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the shear/peel bond strength of metal brackets bonded to human enamel with differently cured bonded systems combined with an antibacterial adhesive component. METHODS: One hundred twenty extracted molars were divided into 3 groups. Stainless steel brackets were bonded with 1 of 3 systems: group 1, no-mix bonding adhesive (Unite, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) (n = 40); group 2, 2-paste chemically cured bonding resin (Concise, 3M Unitek) (n = 40); and group 3, light-cured adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek) (n = 40). Each bonding group was separated into experimental (n = 20) and control groups (n = 20). In the 3 experimental groups, an antibacterial self-etch adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond, Kurary, Osaka, Japan) was also applied to the enamel. Specimens in the control groups were bonded only with their relevant bonding systems according to the manufacturers' instructions. All specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and thermocycled before testing. Debonded specimens were scored with the adhesive remnant index. RESULTS: The mean bond strengths (in megapascals) were 9.8 (control, 15.7) in group 1, 12.0 (control, 18.5) in group 2, and 11.6 (control, 12.4) in group 3. Statistical analysis with t tests showed no difference between group 3 and its control (P = .178), whereas groups 1 and 2 were statistically different from their controls (P = .000). CONCLUSIONS: The results indicated that the newly developed antibacterial self-etch adhesive can be combined with various bonding systems; achieved bond strengths were clinically more than satisfactory.