World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 4 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding

BM Shivalinga, S Pradeep, Ravi Shanthraj, H Jyothi Kiran

Citation Information : Shivalinga B, Pradeep S, Shanthraj R, Kiran HJ. Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding. World J Dent 2013; 4 (1):6-16.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1195

Published Online: 00-03-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To evaluate and compare shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characters of the Transbond XT (BisGMA-based composite), Esthet-X flow (flowable composite), Filtek Z-350 (flowable composite).

Materials and methods

A total of 90 human premolars were divided into group I, Transbond XT (n = 30); group II, Esthet-X flow (n = 30) and group III, Filtek Z-350 (n = 30), the preadjusted edgewise stainless steel premolar brackets were bonded to evaluate the shear bond and debonding properties.

Results

The results of the statistical analysis comparing the three groups indicated no statistically significant differences between the groups. In general, the SBS with groups I and III exhibited similar bond strength with 11.58 ± 1.3 MPa and 11.07 ± 1.0 MPa respectively. Groups III exhibited least bond strength of 10.7 ± 2 MPa. In modified adhesive remnant index (ARI) the majority of bond failures occurred at enamel-adhesive interface or cohesive type failure in all the three groups. Groups II and III showed increased frequency of score 2, 4 and 5 compared to group I which showed increased frequency of score 0 and 1.

Conclusion

When considering the SBS and ARI scores obtained, flowable composites can be effectively applied to orthodontic bracket bonding.

How to cite this article

Pradeep S, Shanthraj R, Kiran HJ, Shivalinga BM. Comparative Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Debonding Properties of a Conventional Composite and Flowable Composites used for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding. World J Dent 2013;4(1):6-16.


PDF Share
  1. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34:849-53.
  2. Acrylic adhesives for bonding attachments to tooth surfaces. Angle Orthod 1968;38:12-18.
  3. The direct bonding of orthodontic attachment to teeth by means of an epoxy resin adhesive. Am J Orthod 1970;58:21-40.
  4. Adhesion of mesh base direct bonding brackets. Am J Orthod 1979;75:421-23.
  5. Bonding metal brackets with self polymerizing sealant composite: A 12 month assessment. Am J Orthod 1977;71: 542-53.
  6. The science of bonding from first to sixth generation. J Am Dent Assoc 2000;131:205-45.
  7. Orthodontic bonding: The next generation. J Clin Orthod 2000;34(10):614-16.
  8. Effect of the self-etching dentin primers on the bonding efficacy of dentin adhesive. Dent Mater J 1989;8: 86-92.
  9. Development of a new bonding system [Abstract]. J Dent Res 1993;72:137
  10. Dentinal bonding mechanisms. Quintessence Int 1991;22:73-74.
  11. Residual monomer leaching from chemically cured and visible light cured orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(3):316-21.
  12. Cytotoxicity of direct bonding adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;93:419-22.
  13. Evaluation of mutagenicity of restorative dental materials using the Ames Salmonella/ Microsome test. J Dent Res 1990;69(5):1188-92.
  14. Mutagenic potential of orthodontic bonding materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1981;80(3):316-24.
  15. Estrogenicity of fissure sealants and adhesive resins determined by reporter gene assay. J Dent Res 2000;79(11):1838-43.
  16. The reaction of skin to primers used in the ‘single-step’ bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;91:105-10.
  17. In vitro cytoxicity of orthodontic bonding materials. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983;83(6):501-06.
  18. Flowable composites for bonding lingual retainers. J Clin Orthod 2002;36:597-98.
  19. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod 2003;75(3):410-15.
  20. Phillips science of dental material (11th ed). Saunders, 2003.
  21. Retentive shear strength of various binding attachment base. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980;77:669-78.
  22. In vivo bonding of glass ionomer cements. J Dent Res 1986;vol 62:571-74.
  23. A new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: An in vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672-77.
  24. In vitro biological response to core and flowable dental restorative materials. Dent Mater 2003;19(1):25-31.
  25. Use of flowable composite for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2008;78(6):1105-09.
  26. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod 2004;74:5; 697-702.
  27. A critique of Bond strength testing in Orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994;21:33-43.
  28. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod 2000;22:13-23.
  29. Tensile bond strength of orthodontic bonding resin and attachments to etched enamel surface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987;92:255-31.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.