Citation Information :
Singh S, Brajendu, Haque I, Kavanakudy BS, Parambil MH, Soans CR. Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage below the Orthodontic Brackets after Bonding with Various Adhesive Agents: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):722-725.
Aim: The aim of the current study was to assess the microleakage below orthodontic brackets after bonding with three different adhesive materials.
Materials and methods: In total, 75 healthy human premolars that had been extracted for orthodontic treatment were utilized in this investigation. The samples were divided into three groups of 25 samples randomly. Premolar brackets with stainless steel bondable 0.022 slot pre-adjusted edgewise appliances were utilized. Group I: Brackets bonded with Nanocomposite Filtek Z350 XT, group II: brackets bonded with Transbond XT, group III: brackets bonded with resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement-GC Fuji Ortho LC. A surveyor applied a 200 g weight to each bracket, making minor adjustments to ensure the adhesive thickness was consistent. Thermocycling was then carried out for 1000 cycles at 5 ± 2°C to 55 ± 2°C with a dwell time of 30 s and a transfer time of 5 s. The samples were incubated in a 0.5% basic fuchsine solution for a day. Every sample was inspected using a stereomicroscope with a ×16 magnification. The data were collected and analyzed.
Results: The least microleakage was found in Transbond XT adhesive group (1.84 ± 0.12), followed by Filtek Z350 XT (1.96 ± 0.08) and GC Fuji Ortho LC (2.44 ± 0.10) group. There was a highly significant difference between the different adhesive agent groups. There was a statistically significant difference found between Filtek Z350 XT vs GC Fuji Ortho LC and Transbond XT vs GC Fuji Ortho LC with a mean difference of –0.48 and 0.60, respectively. However, there was no significant difference between Filtek Z350 XT vs Transbond XT with a mean difference of 0.12.
Conclusion: Within the limitation, the present study concluded that the Transbond XT showed better adhesive properties and least microleakage compared with Filtek Z350 XT and GC Fuji Ortho LC.
Clinical significance: There are many undesirable side effects of orthodontic therapy, including cavities, demineralization, and discoloration of the enamel. Unpleasant “white-spot lesions” or secondary caries under and around the brackets can result from microleakage between the adhesive and the base of the orthodontic bracket as well as between the adhesive and the enamel.
Minick GT, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, et al. Bracket bond strengths of new adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:771–776. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.06.021.
Alkis H, Turkkahraman H, Adanir N. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Eur J Dent 2015; 9:117–121. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.149656.
Moosavi H, Ahrari F, Mohamadipour H. The effect of different surface treatments of demineralized enamel on microleakage under metal orthodontic brackets. Prog Orthod 2013;14:2–9. DOI: 10.1186/2196-1042-14-2.
Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB, et al. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod 2006;76(6):1028–1034. DOI: 10.2319/101805-368.
James JW, Miller BH, English JD, et al. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(5):555–561. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.S0889540602000197.
Mota EG, Oshima HM, Burnett LH Jr, et al. Evaluation of diametral tensile strength and Knoop microhardness of five nanofilled composites in dentin and enamel shades. Stomatologija 2006;8: 67–69. PMID: 17191060.
Hedayati Z, Farjood A. Evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with nanocomposites. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(3):361–366. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_69_18.
Khurshid Z, Zafar M, Qasim S, et al. Advances in nanotechnology for restorative dentistry. Materials 2015;8(2):717–731. DOI: 10.3390/ma8020717.
Eminkahyagil N, Korkmaz Y, Gokalp S, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with newly developed antibacterial self etch adhesive. Angle Orthod 2005;75:843-848. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[843:SBSOOB]2.0.CO;2.
Daub J, Berzins DW, Linn BJ, et al. Bond strength of direct and indirect bonded brackets after thermocycling. Angle Orthod 2006;76:295–300. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2006)076[0295:BSODAI] 2.0.CO;2.
Arikan S, Arhun N, Arman A, et al. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets photopolymerized with LED or conventional light curing units. Angle Orthod 2006;76:1035–1040. DOI: 10.2319/110905-392.
Ramoglu SI, Uysal T, Ulker M, et al. Microleakage under ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod 2009;79:138–143. DOI: 10.2319/102607-508.1.
Shamaa A, Badawy R, El-Sayed W. Microleakage pattern at enamel-adhesive interface under metal brackets bonded with conventional or nano-adhesive systems. Gulf Med J 2016;5:S62–S68. Available from: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/MICROLEAKAGE-PATTERN-AT-ENAMEL-ADHESIVE-INTERFACE-Shamaa-El-Sayed/8ce3b4d244893c67394a34d5cb3fde957e07f0ae.
Dunn WJ, Bush AC. A comparison of polymerization by light-emitting diode and halogen-based light-curing units. J Am Dent Assoc 2002;133:335–341. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2002.0173.
Nalçaci A, Ulusoy N, Atakol O. Time-based elution of TEGDMA and bisGMA from resin composite cured with LED, QTH and high-intensity QTH lights. Oper Dent 2006;31:197–203. DOI: 10.2341/05-10.
Hamamci N, Akkurt A, Basaran G. In vitro evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic brackets using two different laser etching, self- etching and acid etching methods. Lasers Med Sci 2009;27:811–816. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-009-0704-1.
