To determine the clinical applicability of Ormocer based flowable adhesive (Admira flow) in comparison with BisGMA based adhesive (Transbond XT) and Ormocer based packable adhesive (Admira).
Materials and methods
Sixty human premolars, divided into group I (n = 20) Transbond XT, group II (n = 20) Admira and group III (n = 20) Admira flow were bonded with metal brackets using adhesives. Brackets were debonded in shear on an Instron universal testing machine with a crosshead speed of 1 mm per minute. The mode of bond failure was determined by modified ARI index.
Results
The results obtained from SBS evaluation and modified ARI showed highest shear bond strength for Transbond XT (SD 11.64) 3.68 followed by Admira flow (SD 11.0) 2.87 and least for Admira (SD 9.42) 2.21. However, the difference was not statistically significant, but an intergroup comparison done using Independent student ‘t’ test, showed statically significant difference between Transbond XT and Admira. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed least survival median value for Admira, but the survival median value is not statistically significant among the three groups. All groups had modified ARI score of three (60-70%), suggestive of cohesive type of failure.
Conclusion
The in vitro study showed that flowable Ormocer can be an good alternative to commonly used BisGMA based adhesive but the its efficacy needs clinical assessment through a survival analysis.
Clinical significance
Admire flow can definitely be considered as an alternative bonding system due to their comparable bond strength and debonding characters and reported properties of biocompatibility.
How to cite this article
Kumar KS, Rao CH, Reddy KVB, Chidambaram S, Girish HC, Murgod S. Flowable Composite an Alternative Orthodontic Bonding Adhesive: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):883-886.
Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 1963;67:382-391.
Current status of bonding attachments. J Clin Orthod 1973;7:425-449.
A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-178.
Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;85:333-336.
Comparison of shear bond strength of pre coated and uncoated brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:617-621.
Dental ceramics and Ormocer technology-navigating the future: society for biomaterials and Artificial Organs India ISSN 2006;2:0971-1198.
The use of Ormocer as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic bracket. Angle Orthod 2005;75:106-108.
Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod 2004;7:697.
A new one step flowable composite for orthodontic use—an in vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672.
SEM evaluation of the bonding mechanism of self-etching primer on enamel. Angle Orthod 2006;76:132-136.
Characterization of Ist generation flowable composites. Am Dent Association 1998;129:567-577.
Admira—a new Ormocer based filling material. What is it about? What is in it? brain et al Residual debris and bond strength-Is there a relationship? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:222-230.
Admira flow as an orthodontic bonding agent. Am J Dent 2007 Oct;20(5):292-294.
Adhesion and its ten commandments. Am J Dentofac Orthop. 1989 April;355-356.
Flow characteristics and film thickness of flowable resin composite. Oper Dent 2002;27:248-253.
Flowable resin composites as filled adhesives; literature review and clinical recommendations. Quintessence Int 1999;30:249-257.
The use of flowable composite as filled adhesives. Dent Mater 2002;18:227-238.
Cure depths using different curing lights. J Dent Res 2002;81(spec Issue A);A-323, Abstract 2567.
