OBJECTIVE: To test the bonding characteristics of four flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Metal brackets were bonded to acid-etched human enamel using four flowable composites (Grandio Flow, GF; UniFil Flow, UF; UniFil LoFlo Plus, UL; and DenFil Flow, DF), an orthodontic bonding system (Transbond XT, TX), and a restorative composite (Filtek Z250, FZ). After 24 hours of storage in water at 37 degrees C, a shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed. After debonding, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was assessed. In addition, the flow and flexural strength of the materials were examined. RESULTS: The SBS for the flowable composites ranged between 7.2 and 8.3 MPa, and TX showed a significantly higher value (mean 10.9 MPa). The flowable composites also demonstrated a significantly superior flowability, yet inferior flexural strength (except for DF) than TX and FZ. Two flowable composites (GF and UL) produced significantly higher ARI scores than TX and FZ, which represented a larger resin remnant on the enamel surfaces after debonding. CONCLUSION: When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained in this study, flowable composites with no intermediate bonding resin could be conveniently applied for orthodontic bracket bonding.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: To test the bonding characteristics of four flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS:Metal brackets were bonded to acid-etched human enamel using four flowable composites (Grandio Flow, GF; UniFil Flow, UF; UniFil LoFlo Plus, UL; and DenFil Flow, DF), an orthodontic bonding system (Transbond XT, TX), and a restorative composite (Filtek Z250, FZ). After 24 hours of storage in water at 37 degrees C, a shear bond strength (SBS) test was performed. After debonding, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was assessed. In addition, the flow and flexural strength of the materials were examined. RESULTS: The SBS for the flowable composites ranged between 7.2 and 8.3 MPa, and TX showed a significantly higher value (mean 10.9 MPa). The flowable composites also demonstrated a significantly superior flowability, yet inferior flexural strength (except for DF) than TX and FZ. Two flowable composites (GF and UL) produced significantly higher ARI scores than TX and FZ, which represented a larger resin remnant on the enamel surfaces after debonding. CONCLUSION: When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained in this study, flowable composites with no intermediate bonding resin could be conveniently applied for orthodontic bracket bonding.