V Zielinski1, S Reimann, A Jäger, C Bourauel. 1. Endowed Chair of Oral Technology, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-University of Bonn, Welschnonnenstr. 17, 53111, Bonn, Germany.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the shear bond strength of various esthetic brackets used in conjunction with two different adhesive systems. METHODS: Five non-silanized ceramic brackets (Aspire Gold/Forestadent, Clarity™/3M Unitek, CLEAR/Adenta, Contour Twin/ODS, QuicKlear/Forestadent) and four plastic brackets (Aesthetik-Line®/Forestadent, Brillant®/Forestadent, Composite Clear®/ODS, Elegance®/Dentaurum) were bonded either with Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) or with ConTec SE (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) to bovine permanent mandibular incisors. Twelve specimens were tested in each group, thus, bonding 60 ceramic and 48 plastic brackets with either adhesive to a total of 216 teeth. Shear bond strength was measured in accordance with the DIN 13990-2 standard governing test methods for the entire attachment-adhesive-enamel system. The fracture surfaces resulting from shear-induced debonding were analyzed via light microscopy. RESULTS: The combinations Clarity™ + Transbond™ XT, CLEAR® + Transbond™ XT, and Contour Twin + Transbond™ XT exhibited shear bond strengths of over 10 MPa. The Adhesive Remnant Index scores of the various bracket types varied widely according to the different bracket-base designs. No enamel fractures were observed. CONCLUSION: Some bracket-adhesive combinations in this study attained shear bond strengths approaching those of metal brackets. The risk of debonding-related enamel defects is comparable with different esthetic bracket combinations. Manufacturers' recommendations for the adhesive systems to be used with their brackets should be strictly adhered to.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in vitro study is to compare the shear bond strength of various esthetic brackets used in conjunction with two different adhesive systems. METHODS: Five non-silanized ceramic brackets (Aspire Gold/Forestadent, Clarity™/3M Unitek, CLEAR/Adenta, Contour Twin/ODS, QuicKlear/Forestadent) and four plastic brackets (Aesthetik-Line®/Forestadent, Brillant®/Forestadent, Composite Clear®/ODS, Elegance®/Dentaurum) were bonded either with Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) or with ConTec SE (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany) to bovine permanent mandibular incisors. Twelve specimens were tested in each group, thus, bonding 60 ceramic and 48 plastic brackets with either adhesive to a total of 216 teeth. Shear bond strength was measured in accordance with the DIN 13990-2 standard governing test methods for the entire attachment-adhesive-enamel system. The fracture surfaces resulting from shear-induced debonding were analyzed via light microscopy. RESULTS: The combinations Clarity™ + Transbond™ XT, CLEAR® + Transbond™ XT, and Contour Twin + Transbond™ XT exhibited shear bond strengths of over 10 MPa. The Adhesive Remnant Index scores of the various bracket types varied widely according to the different bracket-base designs. No enamel fractures were observed. CONCLUSION: Some bracket-adhesive combinations in this study attained shear bond strengths approaching those of metal brackets. The risk of debonding-related enamel defects is comparable with different esthetic bracket combinations. Manufacturers' recommendations for the adhesive systems to be used with their brackets should be strictly adhered to.
Authors: Michael Schauseil; Sonja Blöcher; Andreas Hellak; Matthias J Roggendorf; Steffen Stein; Heike Korbmacher-Steiner Journal: Head Face Med Date: 2016-04-30 Impact factor: 2.151