World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 12 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Are Flowable Restorative Composites Suitable for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding?

Moina Adeni Khaja, Nandakumar Arani, Devaki Vijayalakshmi

Keywords : Flowable restorative composites, Orthodontic brackets, Shear bond strength, Transbond XT

Citation Information : Khaja MA, Arani N, Vijayalakshmi D. Are Flowable Restorative Composites Suitable for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding?. World J Dent 2021; 12 (4):333-338.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1838

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 15-07-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Aim: This study aimed to determine if flowable restorative light cure composites can be used effectively for routine orthodontic bracket bonding, thereby reducing 4 in the dental office and preserving the surface enamel. Materials and methods: Ninety extracted human premolars were divided into three equal groups. Pre-adjusted edgewise (PAE) brackets were bonded to prepared enamel surface using conventional orthodontic resin Transbond XT (control), GC-G-ænial, and Anabond Stedman. Debonding was performed with a shearing force using a universal testing machine to test shear bond strength (SBS). The residual adhesive on the enamel surface was evaluated using the adhesive remnant index (ARI). In addition, representative samples from each group were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and elemental composition was quantified with energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX). Results: There was a statistically significant difference (p = 0.000) between all three materials with respect to bond strength and ARI. The SBS values of Transbond XT, GC-G-ænial, and Anabond Stedman were found to be 13.10 ± 3.46, 9.8027 ± 2.05, and 6.2720 ± 1.39 MPa, respectively, signifying acceptable bond strength. The greatest frequency for Transbond XT and GC-G-ænial was observed at an ARI score of 1, whereas Anabond Stedman displayed an ARI score of 2. Morphologically different types of images were observed under the SEM. Similar elements with varied concentrations were detected in EDX. An insignificant amount of calcium was detected in all the samples evaluated under EDX indicating preservation of enamel. Conclusion: In this study, Transbond XT was found to be relatively better than GC-G-ænial Universal Flo and Anabond Stedman Flowable composite. The use of flowable restorative light cure composites can be advocated for orthodontic bracket bonding as acceptable SBS values were attained. Clinical significance: The rheological properties and esthetics of the flowable restorative materials make them versatile, economical, and favorable for orthodontic bracket bonding, thereby reducing the in-office armamentarium and the need for an additional orthodontic bonding material.

PDF Share
  1. Lee IB, Son HH, Um CM. Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater 2003;19(4):298–307. DOI: 10.1016/s0109-5641(02)00058-1.
  2. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift Jr EJ, et al. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc 1998;129(5):567–577. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1998.0274.
  3. 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.
  4. Bharti C. Flowable composite: add-on in orthodontics. J Orthod Endod 2017;3(4):14. DOI: 10.21767/2469-2980.100048.
  5. Simona T, Traini T, Caputi S, et al. A new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an in vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672–677.
  6. Ryou D-B, Park H-S, Kim K-H, et al. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthodontist 2008;78(6):1105–1109. DOI: 10.2319/013008-51.1.
  7. Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1(3):265–284. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1974.tb01438.x.
  8. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975(3):171–178. DOI: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666.
  9. D'attilio M, Traini T, Di Iorio D, et al. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod 2005;75(3):410–415. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[410:SBSBFA]2. 0.CO;2.
  10. Albaladejo A, Montero J, Gómez de Diego R, et al. Effect of adhesive application prior to bracket bonding with flowable composites. Angle Orthod 2011;81(4):716–720. DOI: 10.2319/062310-344.1.
  11. Owens Jr SE, Miller BH. A comparison of shear bond strengths of three visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 2000;70(5):352–356. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2000)0702. 0.CO;2.
  12. Ajlouni R, Bishara SE, Soliman MM, et al. The use of ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2004;75:106–108.
  13. Viwattanatipa N, Prasertsangwal J, Juntavee N, et al. Weibull analysis of shear/peel bond strength of orthodontic buccal tubes bonded to five resin composites. Orthodontic Waves 2008;67(3):120–127. DOI: 10.1016/j.odw.2008.02.002.
  14. Rosa V, Pick B, Azeredo TR, et al. Are flowable resin-based composites a reliable material for metal orthodontic bracket bonding? J Contemp Dent Pract 2010;11(4). DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-4-17.
  15. Turgut MD, Attar N, Korkmaz Y, et al. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites. Dent Mat J 2011;30(1):66–71. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2010-102.
  16. Tancan Uysal, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod 2004;74:697–702.
  17. Zachrisson BU. Bonding in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, ed. Orthodontics—Current principles and techniques, ch. 12 3rd ed., St. Louis: Mosby; 2000. pp. 557–645.
  18. Mannerberg F. Appearance of tooth surface as observed in shadowed replicas. Odontol Revy 1960;11(Suppl 6):23–25.
  19. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, et al. Effect of an acidic primer on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998(3):243–247. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70205-7.
  20. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, et al. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119(6):621–624. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2001.113269.
  21. Schauseil M, Blöcher S, Hellak A, et al. Shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new premixed self-etching with a reference total-etch adhesive. Head Face Med 2016;12(1):19. DOI: 10.1186/s13005-016-0117-x.
  22. García AH, Lozano MAM, Vila JC, et al. Composite resins. A review of the materials and clinical indications. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2006;11:E215–E220.
  23. MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, et al. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998;113(3):276–281. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(98)70297-5.
  24. Gorelick L, Masunaga G, Thomas RG, et al. Round table on bonding. J Clin Orthod 1978;12(12):695–714, 761–778, 825–842.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.