Shear bond strength of orthodontic bracket with hydrophilic primer

친수성 프라이머를 이용한 교정용 브라켓 접착시의 전단결합강도에 관한 연구

  • Park, Chul-Wan (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Cha, Kyung-Suk (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University) ;
  • Lee, Jin-Woo (Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Dankook University)
  • 박철완 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 차경석 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실) ;
  • 이진우 (단국대학교 치과대학 교정학교실)
  • Published : 2002.08.01

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical effectiveness of hydrophilic primer, which claim to retain adequate bond strength on moistened enamel resulting from moisture or saliva contamination, by comparing the shear bond strength and adhesive failure patterns of brackets bonded using hydrophilic primer and conventional hydrophobic primer. Brackets were bonded to human premolars embedded in metal cylinders utilizing light cured adhesive, primed with either a hydrophilic primer(Transbond fm primer) or a conventional hydrophobic primer(Transbond XT primer). Each sample was exposed to varying degrees of artificial saliva contamination during the priming process. The shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine, and the adhesive failure patterns after debonding were visually examined by strereomicroscope and assessed using the adhesive remnant index(ARI). The results were as follows 1. In dry conditions, no significant differences in shear bond strength between Transbond W and Transbond XT primers were found. 2. Transbond MIP primer exhibited a significantly higher shear bond strength than Transbond XT primer in saliva-contaminated conditions, regardless of the degree of contamination. 3. When contaminated with one coat of saliva, Transbond MIP primer did not exhibit significant differences in shear bond strength compared to the dry condition. When contaminated with two coats of saliva, Transbond MIP primer exhibited a singnificantly lower shear bond strength compared to the dry condition. 4. The adhesive remnant index of the adhesive failure pattern had a tendency to decrease, as the degree of saliva contamination increased. Bracket-adhesive interface failure was observed in more than half of the saliva contaminated samples utilizing Transbond MIP primer, whereas the bond failure sites of the Transbond XT primer samples occurred almost exclusively at the adhesive-enamel interface in saliva-contaminated conditions. The results of this study suggest that in cases where moisture control is difficult, Transbond MIP primer is an effective alternative to conventional hydrophobic primers.

본 연구의 목적은 산부식된 법랑질에 수분이나 타액이 오염되어도 적절한 접착력을 얻을 수 있다고 소개된 교정용 친수성 프라이머를 이용한 교정용 브라켓 접착시 타액 오염 정도에 따른 전단결합강도와 접착 파절 양상을 기존의 소수성 프라이머와 비교함으로써 임상적 유용성을 평가하는 것이다. 사람의 소구치를 강철 원통에 교정용 레진으로 포매하여 만든 시편에 기존의 소수성인 Transbond XT primer와 친수성인 Transbond MIP primer각각에 대하여 광중합형 접착 레진으로 브라켓을 접착시, 인공 타액을 이용한 오염정도에 따른 전단결합강도를 만능시험기로 측정하고, 접착 파절 양상을 stereomicroscope로 관찰하여 다음과 같은 결과를 얻었다. 1. 건조 상태에서 Transbond XT primer와 Transbond MIP primer의 전단결합강도는 유의한 차이가 없었다. 2. 타액 오염시 그 정도에 상관없이 Transbond MIP primer는 Transbond XT primer에 비해 유의하게 높은 전단결합 강도를 나타냈다(p<0.001). 3. Transbond MIP primer는 한 겹의 타액 오염시 건조 상태와 전단결합강도의 유의한 차이가 없었으나, 두 겹의 타액 오염시에는 유의하게 낮은 결합강도를 나타냈다(p<0.01). 4. 접착 파절 형태는 타액 오염의 정도에 따라 평균 접착제 잔류 지수가 낮아지는 경향을 나타냈다. Transbond MIP primer는 타액 오염시에도 반 이상이 브라켓-레진 계면에서의 파절을 보였으나, Transbond XT primer는 타액 오염시 대부분의 경우 레진-법랑질 계면에서의 파절을 나타냈다. 이상의 실험 결과, 교정용 친수성인 Transbond MIP primer는 수분 조절이 어려운 임상 상황에서 적절한 결합강도를 얻을 수 있는 좋은 방법으로 생각된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surface. J Dent Res 1955 : 34 : 849-53 https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801
  2. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments-progress report. Am J Orthod 1965 : 51 : 901-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(65)90203-4
  3. Miura F, Nakagawa K, Masuhara E. New direct bonding system for plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1971 : 59 : 350-61 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(71)90231-4
  4. Bryant S, Retief DH, Russell CM, Denys FR Tensile bond strengths of orthodontic bonding resins and attachments to etched enameL Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1987 : 92 : 225-31
  5. Boyd RL, Baumrind S. Periodontal considerations in the use of bonds or bands on molars in adolescents and adults. Angle Orthod 1992 : 62 : 117-26
  6. Brandt S, Servoss JM, Wolfson J, Practical methods of bondingDirect and indirect. J Clin Orthod 1975: 9 : 610-21, 624-35
  7. Zachrisson BJ, A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977: 71 : 173-89
  8. Hormati AA, Fuller JL, Denehy GE. Effects of contamination and mechanical disturbance on the quality of acid-etched enameL JADA 1980 : 100 : 34-8
  9. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ, Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: an SEM study. JADA 1985: 110 : 329-32
  10. Silverman E, Cohen M, Demke RS, Silverman M. A new light-cured glass ionomer cement that bonds brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1995 : 108 : 231-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70014-5
  11. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of a new light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998: 114 : 80-7 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70242-2
  12. Webster MJ, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Kbajotia SS, Sinha PK. The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001 : 119 : 54-8 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.109888
  13. Grandhi RK, Combe EC, Speidel TM. Shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets with moisture-insensitive primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001 : 119 : 251-5 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.110988
  14. Hobson RS, Ledvinka J, Meechan JG. The effect of moisture and blood contamination on bond strength of a new orthodontic bonding material. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001 : 120 : 54-7 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.115037
  15. Reynolds JR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975 : 2: 171-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666
  16. Coreil MN, McInnes-Ledoux P, Ledoux WR, Weinberg R Shear bond strength of four orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990: 97 : 126-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(90)70085-Q
  17. Gardner A, Hobson R. Variations in acid-etch patterns with different acids and etch times. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001 : 120 : 64-7 https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2001.114643
  18. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckely JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994: 21 : 33-43 https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.21.1.33
  19. 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 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8
  20. Hitt J, Feigal RJ, Use of a bonding agent to reduce sealant sensitivity to moisture contamination: An in vitro study. Pediat. Dent. 1992 : 14 : 41-6
  21. Sonis AL. Effect of a new bonding agent on bond strength to salivacontaminated enamel. J Clin Orthod 1994 : 28 : 93-4
  22. Feigal RJ, Hitt J, Splierh e. Retaining sealant on salivary contaminated enameL JADA 1993: 124 : 88-97
  23. Hadavi F, Hey JH, Ambrose ER, Louie PW, Shinkewski DJ, The effect of dentin primer on the shear bond strength between composite resin and enameL Oper Dent 1993 : 18 : 61-5
  24. McGuckin RS, Powers JM, Li L. Bond strengths of dentinal bonding systems to enamel and dentin. Quintessence Int 1994: 25 : 791-6
  25. Thoms LM, Nicholls JI, Brudvik JS, Kydd WL. The effect of dentin primer on the tensile bond strength to human enameL Int J Prosthod 1994: 7 : 403-9
  26. Woronko GA Jr, St Germain HA Jr, Meiers Je. Effect of dentin primer on the shear bond strength between composite resin and enameL Over Dent 1996 : 21 : 116-21
  27. Choi JW, Drummond JL, Dooley R, Punwani I, Soh JM. The efficacy of primer on sealant shear bond strength. Pediat Dent 1997 : 19 : 286-8
  28. Xie J, Powers JM, McGuckin RS. In vitro bond strength of two adhesives to enamel and dentin under normal and contaminated conditions. Dental Materials 1993 : 9 : 295-9 https://doi.org/10.1016/0109-5641(93)90046-S
  29. Swift EJ, Perdigao J, Heymann HO. Enamel bond strength of 'onebottle' hesives. Pediat Dent 1998 : 20 : 259-62
  30. McCarthy MF, Hondrurn SO. Mechanical and bond strength properties of light cured and chemically cured glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994: 105 : 135-41 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70109-1
  31. Evans LB, Powers JM. Factors affecting in vitro bond strength of no-mix orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod 1985 : 87: 508-12 https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(85)90087-9
  32. Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schiffer A, Miethke RR The effectof adhesive layer thickness on bondstrength. J Clin Orthod 1992 : 26: 718-20
  33. O'BrienKD, Watts DC, Read MJ. Residual debrisand bond strength Is there a relationship? Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988 : 94 : 222-30
  34. Arvidson K, Johansson EG. Galvanic currents between dental alloys in vitro. Scand J Dent Res 1985 : 93 : 467-73
  35. Nakamoto RY. Use of a salivasubstitutein postradiation xerostomia J Prosthet Dent 1979 : 42 : 539-42 https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(79)90249-X