Ezgi Atik1, Hande Gorucu-Coskuner2, Tulin Taner2. 1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. ezgibaytorun@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical performance of uncoated and adhesive precoated brackets bonded with either self-etching primer (SEP) or conventional two-step etch and primer method (CEM). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 63 patients with a mean age of 15.20 ± 1.6 years. In group I (n = 15), uncoated brackets and CEM; in group II (n = 16), precoated brackets and CEM; in group III (n = 16), uncoated brackets and SEP; in group IV (n = 16), precoated brackets and SEP were used for bonding. Bonding time, bracket failure rate, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were measured. The mean orthodontic treatment time was 1.13 ± 0.18 years. One-way variance ANOVA was used to determine bonding time differences and the chi-square test was used to determine differences in bracket failure rates and ARI scores. RESULTS: The bonding time was significantly lower for Groups III and IV, when compared to Groups I and II (p < 0.001). The bond failure rates were not different between the groups. Significant difference was observed between the procedures in relation to ARI scores (p < 0.001), which were higher in group IV. CONCLUSIONS: Precoated brackets with SEP application significantly reduced chair time without compromising bracket failure rate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Precoated brackets with SEP application can be safely used for bonding. Regarding the mode of failure, this group can be thought as favorable with a reduced risk of enamel tear.
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to compare the clinical performance of uncoated and adhesive precoated brackets bonded with either self-etching primer (SEP) or conventional two-step etch and primer method (CEM). SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The sample consisted of 63 patients with a mean age of 15.20 ± 1.6 years. In group I (n = 15), uncoated brackets and CEM; in group II (n = 16), precoated brackets and CEM; in group III (n = 16), uncoated brackets and SEP; in group IV (n = 16), precoated brackets and SEP were used for bonding. Bonding time, bracket failure rate, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were measured. The mean orthodontic treatment time was 1.13 ± 0.18 years. One-way variance ANOVA was used to determine bonding time differences and the chi-square test was used to determine differences in bracket failure rates and ARI scores. RESULTS: The bonding time was significantly lower for Groups III and IV, when compared to Groups I and II (p < 0.001). The bond failure rates were not different between the groups. Significant difference was observed between the procedures in relation to ARI scores (p < 0.001), which were higher in group IV. CONCLUSIONS: Precoated brackets with SEP application significantly reduced chair time without compromising bracket failure rate. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Precoated brackets with SEP application can be safely used for bonding. Regarding the mode of failure, this group can be thought as favorable with a reduced risk of enamel tear.