Aline Costenoble1, Elsa Vennat2, Jean-Pierre Attal3, Elisabeth Dursun4. 1. a Graduate Orthodontic Resident, Department of Orthodontics, Unité de Recherches en Biomatériaux, Innovations et Interfaces, Université Paris Descartes, Montrouge, France; and Hôpital Albert Chenevier, Créteil, France. 2. b Associate Professor, MSSMat, CNRS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, France. 3. c Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials, Unité de Recherches en Biomatériaux, Innovations et Interfaces, Université Paris Descartes, Montrouge, France; and Hôpital Charles Foix, Ivry-sur-Seine, France. 4. d Associate Professor, Department of Dental Materials, Unité de Recherches en Biomatériaux, Innovations et Interfaces, Université Paris Descartes, Montrouge, France; Hôpital Albert Chenevier, Créteil, France; and MSSMat, CNRS, CentraleSupélec, Université Paris-Saclay, Châtenay-Malabry, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to eroded enamel treated with preventive approaches and to examine the enamel/bracket interfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-one brackets were bonded to seven groups of enamel samples: sound; eroded; eroded+treated with calcium silicate-sodium phosphate salts (CSP); eroded+infiltrated by ICON®; eroded+infiltrated by ICON® and brackets bonded with 1-month delay; eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin; and eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin and brackets bonded with 1-month delay. For each group, 12 samples were tested in SBS and bond failure was assessed with the adhesive remnant index (ARI); one sample was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: Samples treated with CSP or infiltration showed no significant differences in SBS values with sound samples. Infiltrated samples followed by a delayed bonding showed lower SBS values. All of the values remained acceptable. The ARI scores were significantly higher for sound enamel, eroded, and treated with CSP groups than for all infiltrated samples. SEM examinations corroborated the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using CSP or resin infiltration before orthodontic bonding does not jeopardize the bonding quality. The orthodontic bonding should be performed shortly after the resin infiltration.
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets bonded to eroded enamel treated with preventive approaches and to examine the enamel/bracket interfaces. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-one brackets were bonded to seven groups of enamel samples: sound; eroded; eroded+treated with calcium silicate-sodium phosphate salts (CSP); eroded+infiltrated by ICON®; eroded+infiltrated by ICON® and brackets bonded with 1-month delay; eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin; and eroded+infiltrated by an experimental resin and brackets bonded with 1-month delay. For each group, 12 samples were tested in SBS and bond failure was assessed with the adhesive remnant index (ARI); one sample was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). RESULTS: Samples treated with CSP or infiltration showed no significant differences in SBS values with sound samples. Infiltrated samples followed by a delayed bonding showed lower SBS values. All of the values remained acceptable. The ARI scores were significantly higher for sound enamel, eroded, and treated with CSP groups than for all infiltrated samples. SEM examinations corroborated the findings. CONCLUSIONS: Using CSP or resin infiltration before orthodontic bonding does not jeopardize the bonding quality. The orthodontic bonding should be performed shortly after the resin infiltration.