The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2023 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Different Chemical Solvents on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study

Rashtra Bhushan, Shivani Singh, Navin Oommen Thomas, Tony Michael

Keywords : Bond strength, Chemical solvents, Debonding, Orthodontic brackets

Citation Information : Bhushan R, Singh S, Thomas NO, Michael T. Effect of Different Chemical Solvents on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (12):940-943.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3582

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 31-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Aim: The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of various chemical solvents on bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Materials and methods: One hundred healthy human premolars with undamaged buccal surfaces that were extracted for orthodontic purposes were gathered. Using 37% orthophosphoric acid, primer, and Transbond XT adhesive, ceramic 0.018” × 0.022” slot orthodontic brackets were adhered to the tooth surface. Following thermocycling, all samples were divided into four groups, with 25 samples in each group: group I: control; group II: application of ethanol; group III: application of acetone; and group IV: application of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO). Following the debonding tests, a double-ocular stereomicroscope was used to inspect the tooth surfaces. Additionally, adhesive remnant index (ARI) values were evaluated at 40× magnification. Data were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The bond strength was lesser in acetone applied group (16.18 ± 3.64) followed by DMSO applied group (22.08 ± 2.86), ethanol applied group (24.36 ± 4.02), and control group (27.14 ± 3.68). There was a highly significant difference found between the chemical solvents group. The ARI score 3 was present in control (12%), ethanol (8%), and DMSO (4%), and it was absent in acetone applied group. The ARI score 0 was more in acetone applied group (24%). Conclusion: The present study concluded that the reduced debonding force was found with the application of acetone solvent followed by DMSO, ethanol, and control groups. Applying acetone can be a substitute technique to help with ceramic bracket debonding. Clinical significance: Orthodontic bracket debonding cannot occur without shear bond strength (SBS). The need for an ideal debonding technique for ceramic brackets without negative consequences arises from the risk of enamel damage that frequently follows the process. Acetone treatment prior to ceramic bracket debonding could be an alternate clinical technique to preventing enamel damage and facilitating debonding.

  1. Speer C, Zimny D, Hopfenmueller W, et al. Bond strength of disinfected metal and ceramic brackets: An in vitro study. Angle Orthod 2005;75(5):836–842. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[836: BSODMA]2.0.CO;2.
  2. Hossaini S, Bahador A. Application of the high intensity laser therapies on ceramic brackets debonding: A literature review. Ann Dent Spec 2018;6(1):363–366. Available from: https://annalsofdentalspecialty. 5C2HVpejtlEHEa6rsmltgZSmkyU3KV/application-of-the-high- intensity-laser-therapies-on-ceramic-brackets-debonding-a-literature-revie.pdf.
  3. Brantley WA. Structure and properties of orthodontic materials. In: Brantley WA (ed). Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. Germany: Aprinta; 2001. pp. 1–25.
  4. Di Stasio D, Romano A, Paparella RS, et al. How social media meet patients questions: YouTube review for mouth sores in children. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents 2018;32(2 Suppl 1):117–121. PMID: 29460528.
  5. Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(1):34–40. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70271-3.
  6. Larmour CJ, McCabe JF, Gordon PH. An ex vivo investigation into the effects of chemical solvents on the debond behaviour of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 1998;25(1):35–39. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/25.1.35.
  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. Kula K, Schreiner R, Brown J, et al. Clinical bond failure of precoated and operator-coated orthodontic brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002;5:161–165. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2002.02199.x.
  9. Sibi AS, Kumar S, Sundareswaran S, et al. An in vitro evaluation of shear bond strength of adhesive precoated brackets. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014;48(2):93–99. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1225.
  10. Karim Soltani M, Barkhori S, Alizadeh Y, et al. Comparison of debonding characteristics of the conventional metal and self-ligating brackets to enamel: An in vitro study. Iran J Ortho 2014;9(3):e4842. DOI: 10.17795/ijo-3739.
  11. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobsen A, et al. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: Comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71: 141–148. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2001)071<0141:OIVBSC>2.0.CO;2.
  12. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH Jr. Bonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:274–276. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125712.
  13. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;136:425–430. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.08.024.
  14. Uzunçıbuk H, Öztaş SE. In vitro evaluation of the effects of different chemical solvent agents on shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets. Turk J Orthod 2023;36(1):54–61. DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2022.2022.61.
  15. Santana RM, Rached RN, Souza EM, et al. Effect of organic solvents and ultrasound on the removal of orthodontic brackets. Orthod Craniofac Res 2016;19(3):137–144. DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12121.
  16. Cruickshank EJ, Chadwick RG. Can chemical softening agents minimize cavity enlargement during removal of failed anterior resin composite restorations? J Oral Rehabil 1998;25:167–173. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2842.1998.00226.x.
  17. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, et al. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. Angle Orthod 2007;77(2):337–341. Available from:
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.