World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 2 ( March-April, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket after Using Various Etching Systems: An In Vitro Study

George Sam

Keywords : Acid etching, Adhesive remnant index, Orthodontic brackets, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : Sam G. Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket after Using Various Etching Systems: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2021; 12 (2):107-110.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1811

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: This study aimed to assess the shear bond potency of orthodontic brackets following the use of multiple etching systems. Materials and methods: Sixty fit adult human mandibular premolars were employed in this study. Before preparation of the enamel surface, the buccal side of each premolar was subjected to pumicing, washing with a spray, and air-drying. Three groups each constituting 20 teeth were made. Group I: traditional acid etch using 37% phosphoric acid, group II: the self-etch primer namely One-Coat, group III: employing seventh-generation self-etching priming system. Universal testing machine was utilized to evaluate the shear bond test. Conversion to megapascals was done after estimating the forces for debonding in Newtons. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was employed for every fractured sample following debonding. Results: Group I (19.33 ± 0.22) had the greatest shear bond strength, pursued by group III (13.86 ± 0.37). The lowest shear bond strength was depicted by group II (11.48 ± 0.76). High statistical variation was noted amid the three etching agents after applying the analysis of variance test. The comparative assessment amidst the three dissimilar etching agents revealed a statistically significant difference between the three groups—I, II, and III. A score of 3 that is about 40% was highly prevalent in the traditional acid etch system pursued by 30% of the seventh generation self-etching priming system. The lowest score was for One-Coat primers. Employing the Chi-square test, a 0.036 probability value was obtained which was statistically significant for the compared ARI scores. Conclusion: It can be thus concluded that the three groups assessed through this study depicted clinically satisfactory bond strength. The traditional acid etch system showed the greatest shear strength of bonding pursued by the seventh generation self-etching primer system and self-etch primer named One-Coat in that order. Clinical significance: The bond of orthodontic brackets to the surface of enamel is a key issue in orthodontics as the importance of a steady bonding between the bracket and tooth surface is outrightly obvious. Reducing the steps involved may lessen error incorporation and may cut down the time spent by clinicians with lower chances of decalcification of enamel.

  1. Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: (Part 1). Current status and projected future developments in bonding and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130(4):445–451. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.028.
  2. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34(6):849–853. DOI: 10.1177/00220345550340060801.
  3. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51(12):901–912. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(65)90203-4.
  4. Zope A, Zope-Khalekar Y, Chitko SS, et al. Comparison of self-etch primers with conventional acid etching system on orthodontic brackets. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(12):ZC19–ZC22.
  5. Sachdeva A, Raghav S, Goel M, et al. A comparison of the shear bond strength of conventional acid etching, self-etching primer, and single bottle self-adhesive - An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Sci 2017;9(3):170–175. DOI: 10.4103/IJDS.IJDS_66_17.
  6. Shaik JA, Reddy RK, Bhagyalakshmi K, et al. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesives. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(2):289–292. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_15_18.
  7. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85(4):333–340. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
  8. Pillai AR, Gangadharan A, Kumar S, et al. Comparison in shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets between Biofix and conventional bonding systems: an in vitro study. J India Orthod Soc 2014;48(4_suppl 3):461–465. DOI: 10.1177/0974909820140704S.
  9. Banerjee S, Banerjee R. A comparative evaluation of the shear bond strength of five different orthodontic bonding agents polymerized using halogen and light-emitting diode curing lights: an in vitro investigation. Indian J Dent Res 2011;22(5):731–732. DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.93469.
  10. Ogaard B, Bishara SE, Duschner H. Chapter 3, Enamel effects during bonding-debonding. DMJ 2008;27(3):392–399. and treatment with fixed appliances. In: Graber TM, Eliades T, Athanasiou AE ed., Risk Management in Orthodontics: Experts’ Guide to Malpractice, Quintessence Publishing Co, IL, 2004. pp. 19–46.
  11. Basaran G, Özer T, Kama JD. Comparison of a recently developed nanofiller self-etching primer adhesive with other self etching primers and conventional acid etching. Eur J Orthod 2009;31(3):271–275. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn103.
  12. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, et al. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: Comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71:141–148.
  13. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford Jr JH. Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(3):274–276. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125712.
  14. Vilchis SRJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136(3):425–430. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.024.
  15. Yap AU, Soh MS, Han TT, et al. Influence of curing lights and modes on cross-link density of dental composites. Oper Dent 2004;29:410–415.
  16. Fleischmann LA, Sobral MC, Santos Júnior GC, et al. Comparative study of six types of orthodontic brackets for adhesion strength. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(4):107–116. DOI: 10.1590/S1415-54192008000400013.
  17. Lin CL, Huang SF, Tsai HC, et al. Finite element sub-modeling analyses of damage to enamel at the incisor enamel/adhesive interface upon de-bonding for different orthodontic bracket bases. J Biomech 2011;44(1):134–142. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbiomech.2010.08.038.
  18. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, et al. Effects of salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(4):287–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01416.x.
  19. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, et al. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):616–620. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(99)70195-2.
  20. Ozer T, Basaran G, Berk N. Laser etching of enamel for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2008;134(2):193–197. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.04.055.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.