OBJECTIVE: To compare bond strength and bond failure location of lingual brackets indirectly bonded after lingual enamel sandblasting with 27-, 50-, and 90-µm aluminum oxide particles followed by 37% phosphoric acid etching. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty maxillary premolars were randomly divided into four equal groups according to the method of lingual enamel surface conditioning: Group 1 (control) was etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and group 2, group 3, and group 4 were sandblasted with 27-, 50-, and 90-µm aluminum oxide particles, respectively, prior to acid etching. Lingual brackets were indirectly bonded using the same protocol and adhesive (Sondhi) in all groups. The maximum shear bond strength required to debond the brackets was measured using a testing machine, and the bond failure location was classified according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Analysis of variance was used to compare the mean bond strength between groups. The differences between ARI scores were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in mean shear bond strength or ARI scores between the four enamel-conditioning procedures. CONCLUSION: Lingual enamel sandblasting using different particle sizes of aluminum oxide prior to phosphoric acid etching did not increase the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets and did not affect the amount of adhesive remnant on the enamel.
OBJECTIVE: To compare bond strength and bond failure location of lingual brackets indirectly bonded after lingual enamel sandblasting with 27-, 50-, and 90-µm aluminum oxide particles followed by 37% phosphoric acid etching. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty maxillary premolars were randomly divided into four equal groups according to the method of lingual enamel surface conditioning: Group 1 (control) was etched with 37% phosphoric acid, and group 2, group 3, and group 4 were sandblasted with 27-, 50-, and 90-µm aluminum oxide particles, respectively, prior to acid etching. Lingual brackets were indirectly bonded using the same protocol and adhesive (Sondhi) in all groups. The maximum shear bond strength required to debond the brackets was measured using a testing machine, and the bond failure location was classified according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Analysis of variance was used to compare the mean bond strength between groups. The differences between ARI scores were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis test. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences in mean shear bond strength or ARI scores between the four enamel-conditioning procedures. CONCLUSION: Lingual enamel sandblasting using different particle sizes of aluminum oxide prior to phosphoric acid etching did not increase the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets and did not affect the amount of adhesive remnant on the enamel.