The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 2 ( February, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Construction of an In Vivo Debonding Device and Comparison of Bracket Failure Rate and Debonding Force for Indirect Orthodontic Bonding

Goyal Shrishtee Manoj, Narayan Kulkarni, Atri Naik, Binal Naik

Keywords : Adhesive remnant index, Bracket failure, Dual-cure adhesive resin, Indirect bonding, In vivo bond strength, In vivo debonding device

Citation Information : Manoj GS, Kulkarni N, Naik A, Naik B. Construction of an In Vivo Debonding Device and Comparison of Bracket Failure Rate and Debonding Force for Indirect Orthodontic Bonding. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (2):193-201.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3310

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 10-06-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: A major limitation of indirect bonding is incomplete penetration of the curing light through transfer trays, leading to inadequate curing of light-cure adhesive resin, causing bracket bond failure. Dual-cure adhesive resin is both light and chemically cured, which reduces the requirement of light for curing of the composite. Comparative evaluation of bracket failure rate and bond strength between dual-cure composite and light-cure composite for indirect orthodontic bonding of brackets. Materials and methods: A split-mouth randomized clinical study was carried out in 51 patients (30 females and 21 males). Indirect orthodontic bonding using Erkogum as adhesive to attach the bracket to cast and glue gun material was utilized to form a transfer tray. Conventional light-cure and dual-cure adhesive resins were compared with regard to their bracket failure rate, adhesive remnant index score, and in vivo clinical bond strength. Results: Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was employed to test the normality of data. Mann–Whitney U test and Chi-square test were performed for the quantitative variables and it was observed that both the groups showed similar results for the parameters being measured. The mandibular arch showed more bracket failure, the dual-cure composite group showed more bracket failure, however, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score for both the groups was similar. No statistically significant difference was seen concerning the clinical bond strength between the two adhesive resins. Conclusion: Dual-cure adhesive system can be used for indirect bonding in orthodontics. The mandibular arch had a higher bond failure in the second premolar region. The sequence of bond failure was concordant among both the adhesive groups. However, dual-cure adhesive invariably showed more bracket failure. The highest bond strength was observed for the maxillary canine brackets in the light-cure group, and mandibular canine brackets in the dual-cure group. Whereas, the weakest bond strength in the light-cure group was observed for the mandibular second premolar brackets and for maxillary second premolar brackets in the dual-cure group. There was no significant difference between the in vivo clinical bond strength between the two adhesive systems. On debonding, majority of the adhesive was observed to be on the tooth surface. Clinical significance: This study signifies that both light-cure and dual-cure resins can be used for indirect bonding procedures but light-cure composite resin shows a lower bracket failure rate as compared to dual-cure composite resin.

  1. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, et al. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972;62(3):236–244. DOI: 10.1016/s0002-9416(72)90264-3.
  2. Silverman E, Cohen M. A report on a major improvement in the indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1975;9:270–276. PMID: 1097465.
  3. Swartz M. About orthodontic bonding, an interview with Dr. Michael Swartz. Ortho Cyber J 2003. DOI: 10.31021/jnn.20181120.
  4. Moin K, Dogon IL. Indirect bonding of orthodontic attachments. Am J Orthod 1977;72:261–275. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90212-3.
  5. Thomas RG. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod 1979;13(2):93–106. PMID: 397232.
  6. Read MJ, O'Brien KD. A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98(3):259–262. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81603-8.
  7. Read MJF, Pearson AL. A method for light-cured indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1998;32(8):502–503.
  8. Hickham JH. Predictable indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1993;27(4):215–218. PMID: 8360338.
  9. Cooper RB, Sorenson NA. Indirect bonding with adhesive precoated brackets. J Clin Orthod 1993;27(3):164–167. PMID: 8496356.
  10. Kalange JT. Ideal appliance placement with APC brackets and indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1999;33(9):516–526. PMID: 10895657.
  11. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115(4):352–359. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70252-0.
  12. Moskowitz EM, Knight LD, Sheridan JJ, et al. A new look at indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1996;30(5):277–281. PMID: 10356506.
  13. Kasrovi PM, Timmins S, Shen A. A new approach to indirect bonding using light-cure composite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(6):652–656. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70319-6.
  14. White LW. A new and improved indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1999;33(1):17–23. PMID: 10535005.
  15. Vashi N, Vashi B. An improved indirect bonding tray and technique. J Indian Orthod Soc 2008;42:19–23. DOI: 10.1177/0974909820080105.
  16. Bhardwaj A, Belludi A, Gupta A, et al. Indirect bonding technique– a simplified novel technique. J Asian Pacific Orthod Soc 2011;2(3):1. DOI: 10.4103/2321-1407.118172.
  17. Madhusudhan S, Laxmikanth SM, Shetty PC. A newly simplified indirect bonding technique. Indian J Dent Sci 2012;4(4):81–83.
  18. Smith RT, Shivapuja PK. The evaluation of dual cement resins in orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1993;103(5):448–451. DOI: 10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81795-0.
  19. Aksakalli S, Demir A. Indirect bonding: a literature review. Eur J General Dent 2012;1(1):6. DOI: 10.5152/turkjorthod.2016.16023.
  20. Aileni KR, Rachala MR, Mallikarjun V, et al. Gum and gun: a new indirect bonding technique. J Indian Orthod Soc 2012;46(4_suppl1): 287–291. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1107.
  21. Li J, Shibuya I, Teshima I, et al. Development of dual-curing type experimental composite resin cement for orthodontic bonding– effect of additional amount of accelerators on the mechanical properties. Dent Mater J 2009;28(4):401–408. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.28.401.
  22. Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):773–776. DOI: 10.2319/080108-398.1.
  23. Katona TR. A comparison of the stresses developed in tension, shear peel, and torsion strength testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(3):244–251. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70251-8.
  24. Linklater RA, Gordon PH. Bond failure patterns in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(5):534–539. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.s0889540602000252.
  25. Khan H, Mheissen S, Iqbal A, et al. Bracket failure in orthodontic patients: the incidence and the influence of different factors. BioMed Res Int 2022;2022. DOI: 10.1155/2022/5128870.
  26. Ahmed T, Rahman NA, Alam MK. Comparison of orthodontic bracket debonding force and bracket failure pattern on different teeth in vivo by a prototype debonding device. BioMed Res Int 2021;2021. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6663683.
  27. Pickett KL, Lionel Sadowsky P, Jacobson A, et al. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71(2):141–148. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001);2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.