The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 8 ( August, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Assessment of the Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket on Ceramic Crown Surface Using Three Various Bonding Agents: A Comparative Study

Brajendu, Irfanul Haque, George Sam, Supraja Pulipaka, Shilpa Mailankote, Aparna Anand

Keywords : Adhesive remnant index, Bonding agents, Ceramic crown, Orthodontic brackets, Shear bond strength

Citation Information : Brajendu, Haque I, Sam G, Pulipaka S, Mailankote S, Anand A. Assessment of the Bond Strength of Orthodontic Bracket on Ceramic Crown Surface Using Three Various Bonding Agents: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (8):762-765.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3718

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 26-11-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: The current study's aim was to evaluate the orthodontic bracket's bond strength employing three different bonding agents on a ceramic crown surface. Materials and methods: Tooth preparation on 60 permanent maxillary premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic purposes was carried out. Supragingival finishing margins were made for all samples, and ceramic (PFM) crowns were fabricated. Following crown cementation on the prepared samples, they were divided into three experimental groups randomly (n = 20) as follows: group I: Bracket bonding using Transbond XT bonding agent; group II: Bracket bonding using RelyXTM Unicem bonding agent; and group III: Bracket bonding using Assure Plus bonding agent. A universal testing machine was utilized to conduct the shear bond strength test. Using a stereomicroscope with a 10× magnification, adhesive remnant index scores were also used to assess the adhesive that was remaining on the surfaces. Data was recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The highest bond strength was found in RelyXTM Unicem bonding agent (19.38 ± 0.84) followed by Transbond XT bonding agent (17.12 ± 1.04) and Assure Plus bonding agent (16.14 ± 1.02). A highly significant difference was found between Transbond XT vs RelyXTM Unicem groups and RelyXTM Unicem vs Assure Plus groups. There was no significant difference found between Transbond XT and Assure Plus (p > 0.001). Adhesive Remnant Index scores showed that score 1 was higher [7 (35%)] in the Transbond XT bonding agent group. Score 1 was 8 (40%) and score 2 was 6 (30%) in RelyXTM Unicem bonding agent groups and in Assure Plus bonding agent group, score 2 was higher [9 (45%)]. Conclusion: In conclusion, RelyXTM Unicem exhibited superior bond strength with ceramic crowns when compared to Assure Plus and Transbond XT bonding agents. Clinical significance: One of the most important steps in orthodontic therapy is bonding brackets to the teeth. A high enough and long-lasting bond between brackets and artificial surfaces is necessary for orthodontic treatment to be successful, as is the requirement for a bonding agent with the highest possible binding strength. The necessity for a more dependable process to glue the artificial crown surface has arisen due to the rise in adult patients seeking fixed orthodontic treatment.

PDF Share
  1. Stella JP, Oliveira AB, Nojima LI, et al. Four chemical methods of porcelain conditioning and their influence over bond strength and surface integrity. Dental Press J Orthod 2015;20(4):51–56. DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.20.4.051-056.oar.
  2. Dumbryte I, Vebriene J, Linkeviciene L, et al. Enamel microcracks in the form of tooth damage during orthodontic debonding: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies. Eur J Orthod 2018;40(6):636–648. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjx102.
  3. Ajlouni R, Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, et al. The effect of porcelain surface conditioning on bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle orthod 2005;75(5):858–864. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)75[858: TEOPSC]2.0.CO;2.
  4. Albaladejo A, Montero J, Gómez de Diego R, et al. Effect of adhesive application prior to bracket bonding with flowable composites. Angle Orthod 2011;81(4):716–720. DOI: 10.2319/062310-344.1.
  5. Anca Jivanescu, Dana Cristina Bratu, Roxana Zaharia, et al. Tensile bond strength evaluation of two adhesive cements used for bonding orthodontic metal brackets to porcelain fused-to-metal crowns. Mat Plastice 2014;51(4):465–467. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/282150267_Tensile_Bond_Strength_Evaluation_of_Two_Adhesive_Cements_Used_for_Bonding_Orthodontic_Metal_Brackets_to_Porcelain_Fused-to- metal_Crowns/link/5605137e08ae8e08c08adbad/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19.
  6. Ayar MK. A review of ethanol wet-bonding: Principles and techniques. Eur J Dent 2016;10(01):155–159. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.175687.
  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. Borzangy S. Impact of surface treatment methods on bond strength of orthodontic brackets to indirect composite provisional restorations. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(12):1412–1416. PMID: 32381842.
  9. Sharma S, Tandon P, Nagar A, et al. A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci 2014;3:29–33. DOI: 10.4103/2278-0203.132892.
  10. Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B. Influence of cross-head speed in orthodontic bond strength testing. Dent Mater 2005;21:139–144. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2004.03.004.
  11. Liu C, Liu H, Qian YT, Zhu S, Zhao SQ. The influence of four dual-cure resin cements and surface treatment selection to bond strength of fiber post. Int J Oral Sci. 2014 Mar;6(1):56–60.
  12. Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC, et al. Investigation of a hydrophilic primer for orthodontic bonding: An in vitro study. J Orthod 2000;27(2):181–186. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/27.2.181.
  13. Toodehzaeim MH, Haerian A, Safari I, et al. The effect of assure plus resin on the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded to enamel and surface of porcelain and amalgam restorations. Biosci Biotechnol Res Commun 2017;10(2):82–87. DOI: 10.21786/bbrc/10.2/14.
  14. Fleischmann LA, Sobral MC, Santos Júnior GC, et al. Comparative study of six types of orthodontic brackets for adhesion strength. Rev Dental Press Ortod Ortop Facial 2008;13(4):107–116. Available from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262554644_A_comparative_study_of_six_types_of_orthodontic_brackets_with_regard_to_bond_strength.
  15. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, et al. Effects of salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32(4):287–295. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01416.x.
  16. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Olsen ME, et al. Effect of time on the shear bond strength of glass ionomer and composite orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116(6):616–620. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70195-2.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.