The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 4 ( July, 2010 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Are Flowable Resin-Based Composites a Reliable Material for Metal Orthodontic Bracket Bonding?

Vinicius Rosa, Bárbara Pick, Tatiana Rocha Azeredo, Eduardo Augusto Mascarenhas Cruz Filho, Walter Gomes Miranda Júnior

Citation Information : Rosa V, Pick B, Azeredo TR, Filho EA, Júnior WG. Are Flowable Resin-Based Composites a Reliable Material for Metal Orthodontic Bracket Bonding?. J Contemp Dent Pract 2010; 11 (4):17-24.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-4-17

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-07-2010

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2010; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the tensile bond strength (TBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of three flowable resin-based composites and three orthodontic adhesive systems for metal bracket bonding.

Methods and Materials

Sixty bovine incisors were randomly divided into six groups. Enamel surfaces were etched with 37 percent phosphoric acid for 30 seconds and stainless steel orthodontic brackets were bonded using either flowable resinbased composites (3M Flow, FL; Tetric Flow, TF; and Wave, WA) or orthodontic bonding systems (Transbond XT, TX; Concise Orthodontic, CO; Fill Magic Ortodôntico, FM). All specimens were thermal cycled and stored in distilled water at 37°C for 24 hours, after which they were subsequently tested for TBS using a universal testing machine. ARI scores were determined after the failure of brackets. TBS and ARI data were submitted to ANOVA, Tukey, and Kruskal-Wallis tests (p=0.05), respectively.

Results

Rankings of the resin-based composites based on TBS means (MPa) were TX (6.4±2.1), followed by CO (4.5±2.7), FM (3.7±1.2), FL (3.6±1.2), TF (3.3±1.2), and WA (2.4±0.6). CO exhibited the lowest ARI mean score (0.9±1.2) which was significantly different from the other five materials: TX (2.8±0.42), FM (2.8±0.42), FL (2.9±0.32), TF (2.9±0.32), and WA (3.0±0.01). However, there were no statistically significant differences among the other groups with mean scores of 2.8–3.0. A score of 3.0 indicated that all the resin remained bonded to the tooth surface.

Conclusions

The flowable resin-based composites tested (Fl, TF, and WA) used to bond metal orthodontic brackets to bovine enamel had low mean TBS values but acceptable ARI mean scores.

Clinical Significance

Flowable composites may not be appropriate for bracket bonding, unless the teeth to be bonded are not subjected to higher orthodontic stresses, such as those without an antagonist.

Citation

Pick B, Rosa V, Azeredo TR, Filho EAMC, Miranda Júnior WG. Are Flowable Resin-Based Composites a Reliable Material for Metal Orthodontic Bracket Bonding? J Contemp Dent Pract [Internet]. 2010 July; 11(4):017-024. Available from: http://www.thejcdp.com/journal/ view/volume11-issue4-pick


PDF Share
  1. , Nanda RS, Currier GF, Angolkar PV. An in vitro evaluation of bond strength of three glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 97(4):316-22.
  2. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(3):384-90.
  3. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod. 1998; 25(4):283-7.
  4. In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121(5):496-501.
  5. Development of a device to measure bracket debonding force in vivo. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(6):564-70.
  6. Orthodontic bracket bonding: enamel bond strength vs time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006;130(4):435.e1-6.
  7. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2(2):171–8.
  8. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1105-9.
  9. Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003; 19(4):298-307.
  10. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129(5):567-77.
  11. Effect of thermal cycling on shear bond strength with different types of selfetching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets using a MMA-based resin. Dent Mater J. 2005; 24(1):30-5.
  12. A 2-year evaluation of moisture on microtensile bond strength and nanoleakage. Dent Mater. 2007; 23(7):862-70.
  13. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod. 1976; 3(2):91-5.
  14. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(5):697-702.
  15. Shear vs. tensile bond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res. 1995; 74(9):1591-6.
  16. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(3):410-5.
  17. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94(3):201-6.
  18. Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 100(3):251-8.
  19. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1105-9.
  20. Validity of using bovine teeth as a substitute for human counterparts in adhesive tests. East Mediterr Health J. 2003; 9(1-2):201-7.
  21. AFM characterization of bovine enamel and dentine after acid-etching. Micron. 2009; 40(4):502-6.
  22. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res. 1983; 62(10):1076-81.
  23. Comparison of photo-activation versus chemical or dual-curing of resin-based luting cements regarding flexural strength, modulus and surface hardness. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28(11):1022-8.
  24. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(3):276-81.
  25. An in vitro study of the bond strength of two light-cured composites used in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102(5):418-26.
  26. Evaluation of the bond strength of different bracket-bonding systems to bovine enamel. Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19(3):259-70.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.