The korean journal of orthodontics (대한치과교정학회지)

The Korean Association Of Orthodontists (대한치과교정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Direct and indirect bonding of wire retainers to bovine enamel using three resin systems: shear bond strength comparisons

부착 유지장치의 직, 간접 부착법에 따른 전단 접착력 비교

  • Kwon, Tae-Yub (Department of Dental Biomaterials, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Meina, Hu (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Antoszewska, Joana (Department of Dentofacial Orthopedics and Orthodontics, Wroclaw Medical University) ;
  • Park, Hyo-Sang (Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)
  • Received : 2011.06.30
  • Accepted : 2011.09.26
  • Published : 2011.12.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objective: We compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of lingual retainers bonded to bovine enamel with three different resins using direct and indirect methods. Methods: Both ends of pre-fabricated twisted ligature wires were bonded to bovine enamel surfaces using Light-Core, Tetric N-Flow, or Transbond XT. Phosphoric acid-etched enamel surfaces were primed with One-Step prior to bonding with Light-Core or Tetric N-Flow. Transbond XT primer was used prior to bonding with Transbond XT. After 24 hours in water at $37^{\circ}C$, we performed SBS tests on the samples. We also assigned adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores after debonding and predicted the clinical performance of materials and bonding techniques from Weibull analyses. Results: Direct bonding produced significantly higher SBS values than indirect bonding for all materials. The SBS for Light-Core was significantly higher than that for Tetric N-Flow, and there was no significant difference between the direct bonding SBS of Transbond XT and that of Light-Core. Weibull analysis indicated Light-Core performed better than other indirectly bonded resins. Conclusions: When the SBS of a wire retainer is of primary concern, direct bonding methods are superior to indirect bonding methods. Light-Core may perform better than Transbond XT or Tetric N-Flow when bonded indirectly.

Keywords

References

  1. Little RM, Riedel RA, Engst ED. Serial extraction of first premolars-- postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthod 1990;60:255-262.
  2. Little RM, Riedel RA, Stein A. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 97:393-404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(08)70111-O
  3. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postretention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:423-428. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90102-3
  4. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2006;25:CD002283.
  5. Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA, Tahir E. Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment: nonextraction with prolonged retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106: 243-249. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70043-5
  6. Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod 1977;71:440-448. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(77)90247-0
  7. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70085-4
  8. Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:67-74. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(97)70304-4
  9. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:352-359. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70252-0
  10. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978;74:62-78. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5
  11. Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Hosier MJ. Bond strengths and remnant adhesive resin on debonding for orthodontic bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:302-307. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(95)70025-0
  12. Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano Dorigo E, Breschi L. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater 2009; 25:649-654. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2008.11.010
  13. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives: principles and techniques. 9th ed. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC Decker; 2002. p. 111-25.
  14. Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S. Different lingual retainer composites and the microleakage between enamel-composite and wire-composite interfaces. Angle Orthod 2008; 78:941-946. https://doi.org/10.2319/072707-350.1
  15. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2008;78:1105-1109. https://doi.org/10.2319/013008-51.1
  16. Toroglu MS, Yaylali S. Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134: 181e1-7.
  17. Isci D, Sahin Saglam AM, Alkis H, Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T. Effects of fluorosis on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod 2011;33:161-166. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjq063
  18. Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1982;82:269-276. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(82)90461-4
  19. Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:367-371. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(88)90125-4
  20. Yi GK, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:577-581. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(03)00503-1
  21. Martin S, Garcia-Godoy F. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:615-620. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70086-9
  22. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115: 24-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70312-4
  23. Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T, Isci D, Ozkalayci N. Thermocycling effects on shear bond strength of a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod 2008;78:351-356. https://doi.org/10.2319/122906-537.1
  24. McCabe JF, Walls AW. The treatment of results for tensile bond strength testing. J Dent 1986;14:165-168. https://doi.org/10.1016/0300-5712(86)90019-9
  25. Suh BI. Oxygen-inhibited layer in adhesion dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent 2004;16:316-323. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1708-8240.2004.tb00060.x
  26. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley 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
  27. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:514-519. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70171-4

Cited by

  1. The effect of bonded resin surface area on the detachment force of lingual bonded fixed retainers: An in vitro study vol.44, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2014.44.1.20