Wan Salbiah Wan Abdul Razak1, Martyn Sherriff2,3, Dirk Bister1, Jadbinder Seehra1. 1. a Department of Orthodontics , King's College London Dental Institute, Floor 22, Guy's Hospital, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust , London , UK. 2. b School of Oral and Dental Sciences, Bristol Dental Hospital, University of Bristol and Kings College London Dental Institute, Guy's and St Thomas NHS Foundation Trust , London , WC2R 2LS , United Kingdom. 3. c Kings College London Dental Institute at Guy's, King's College and St Thomas' Hospitals , London , UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the force to debond stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to acrylic teeth using different combinations of adhesive and surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred prefabricated upper lateral incisor acrylic teeth were divided into 4 equal groups: Transbond XT® adhesive only (Group 1, control), Transbond XT® adhesive with sandblasting (Group 2), Transbond XT® adhesive with abrasion / + methyl methacrylate (MMA) (Group 3) and Triad® Gel only (Group 4). The force in Newtons (N) to debond the brackets was measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise multi-comparison of means (Šidak's adjustment) were undertaken. RESULTS: The highest force to debond was recorded for Group 2 (275.7 N; SD 89.0) followed by Group 3 (241.9 N; SD 76.0), Group 1 (142.7 N; SD 36.7) and Group 4 (67.9 N; SD 21.1). Significant differences in bond strength measurements between the experimental groups were detected. Mean force values for the groups revealed no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both sandblasting and surface abrasion/+ application of methyl methacrylate (MMA) in combination with Transbond XT® adhesive are recommended for bonding stainless orthodontic brackets to acrylic teeth.
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to evaluate the force to debond stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to acrylic teeth using different combinations of adhesive and surface treatments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred prefabricated upper lateral incisor acrylic teeth were divided into 4 equal groups: Transbond XT® adhesive only (Group 1, control), Transbond XT® adhesive with sandblasting (Group 2), Transbond XT® adhesive with abrasion / + methyl methacrylate (MMA) (Group 3) and Triad® Gel only (Group 4). The force in Newtons (N) to debond the brackets was measured. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and pairwise multi-comparison of means (Šidak's adjustment) were undertaken. RESULTS: The highest force to debond was recorded for Group 2 (275.7 N; SD 89.0) followed by Group 3 (241.9 N; SD 76.0), Group 1 (142.7 N; SD 36.7) and Group 4 (67.9 N; SD 21.1). Significant differences in bond strength measurements between the experimental groups were detected. Mean force values for the groups revealed no significant differences between Group 2 and Group 3 (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both sandblasting and surface abrasion/+ application of methyl methacrylate (MMA) in combination with Transbond XT® adhesive are recommended for bonding stainless orthodontic brackets to acrylic teeth.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bond strength; acrylic teeth; orthodontic brackets; pontics