Shear bond strength comparison of moisture-insensitive primer and self-etching primer

Arunima Goswami, Borah Mitali, Bk Roy, Arunima Goswami, Borah Mitali, Bk Roy

Abstract

Context: The detrimental effect of moisture on orthodontic bonding has long been known. Hydrophilic bonding materials have been introduced suggesting the possibility of obtaining successful orthodontic bonding to a moisture contaminated enamel surface.

Aims: This study has been performed with an aim to compare the in vitro shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characteristic of moisture-insensitive primer (MIP) (Transbond MIP) (3M Unitek, South Peck Road, Monrovia, California, USA) and self-etching primer (SEP) (Transbond Plus SEP) (3M Unitek, South Peck Road, Monrovia, California, USA) in combination with a color changing adhesive system (Transbond Plus Color Change) (3M Unitek, South Peck Road, Monrovia, California, USA) under both dry and contaminated condition.

Settings and design: Randomized controlled clinical study.

Subjects and methods: One hundred and twenty freshly extracted teeth for the purpose of orthodontic treatment were collected. Teeth were randomly assigned into four groups, each consisting of 30 specimen and stainless steel brackets were bonded using each primer-adhesive combination under different enamel conditions, that is, dry and enamel contaminated with natural saliva. SBS and adhesive remnant index were calculated for each group.

Results: Analysis of variance of SBS for both MIP and SEP under dry and contaminated condition showed no statistical significance (P = 0.5). Chi-square test showed significant difference in debonding characteristics among the test groups (P < 0.001). All the groups showed typical debonding characteristics of separation either at the bracket-adhesive interface or within the adhesive itself.

Conclusions: Moisture contamination did not affect the SBS and adhesive remaining on tooth for both MIP and SEP.

Keywords: Moisture contamination; moisture-insensitive primer; orthodontic bonding; self-etching primer.

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of Interest: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Test groups (colour coded for identification)
Figure 2
Figure 2
Debonding procedure followed in the study

References

    1. Zachrisson BJ. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod. 1977;71:173–89.
    1. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: An SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985;110:329–32.
    1. Eliades T, Katsavrias E, Eliades G. Moisture-insensitive adhesives: Reactivity with water and bond strength to wet and saliva-contaminated enamel. Eur J Orthod. 2002;24:35–42.
    1. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:333–40.
    1. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8.
    1. Greenlaw R, Way DC, Galil KA. An in vitro evaluation of a visible light-cured resin as an alternative to conventional resin bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96:214–20.
    1. Whitlock BO, 3rd, Eick JD, Ackerman RJ, Jr, Glaros AG, Chappell RP. Shear strength of ceramic brackets bonded to porcelain. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994;106:358–64.
    1. Bishara SE, Fehr DE, Jakobsen JR. A comparative study of the debonding strengths of different ceramic brackets, enamel conditioners, and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993;104:170–9.
    1. Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974;1:265–84.
    1. Zeppieri IL, Chung CH, Mante FK. Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124:414–9.
    1. Rajagopal R, Padmanabhan S, Gnanamani J. A comparison of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of conventional, moisture-insensitive, and self-etching primers in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2004;74:264–8.
    1. Vicente A, Mena A, Ortiz AJ, Bravo LA. Water and saliva contamination effect on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with a moisture-tolerant light cure system. Angle Orthod. 2009;79:127–32.
    1. Santos BM, Pithon MM, Ruellas AC, Sant’Anna EF. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded with hydrophilic and hydrophobic bond systems under contamination. Angle Orthod. 2010;80:963–7.
    1. Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22:13–23.

Source: PubMed

Sponsoren und Mitarbeiter

Krankheiten

Drogeninterventionen

3
Abonnieren