Comparative analysis of adhesive remnant index of orthodontic adhesive systems

Larissa Kelly  Santos; Hugo Ramos  Rocha; Anna Carollina Pereira  Barroso; Rejane Pereira  Otoni; Carolina Carvalho de Oliveira  Santos; Thiago Fonseca-Silva

doi:10.5937/sejodr8-30972

Larissa Kelly Santos
Hugo Ramos Rocha
Anna Carollina Pereira Barroso
Rejane Pereira Otoni
Carolina Carvalho de Oliveira Santos
Thiago Fonseca-Silva Department of Dentistry; School of Biological and Health Sciences; Universidade Federal dos Vales do Jequitinhonha e Mucuri – UFVJM

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5937/sejodr8-30972

Keywords: Composite resin, Orthodontics, Dental enamel, Adhesion

Abstract

Introduction: At the end of orthodontic treatment, enamel fractures and cracks are pointed out as potential risks related to the procedures for removing fixed appliances bonding to teeth. Aim of the study: The objective of the present study was to analyze comparatively residual adhesive index of different adhesive systems used in Orthodontics for bonding brackets on the dental surface. Materials and Methods: The present in vitro study was performed with 120 healthy human extracted premolars randomly divided into two groups to receive the bonding of steel and ceramic brackets. Then, the teeth were divided into six subgroups according to adhesive system used: G1: Orthocem®; G2: Orthocem® + Ambar universal® adhesive; G3: Orthobond Plus®; G4: Biofix®; G5: Transbond XT® and G6: Ortholink VLC®. The analysis of the residual adhesive index was performed using a microscope under 20x magnification after removing the brackets. Data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney test. The level of statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results and Conclusions: The score of the most prevalent adhesive index in steel brackets group was 2, while in ceramic brackets group was 3. Comparatively, Orthobond Plus®, Biofix® and Ortholink VLC® showed better performance of adhesive remnant index than Orthocem® + Ambar® in steel brackets group. For ceramic brackets, Biofix® and Transbond XT® adhesives performed better than Orthobond Plus®.

References

1. Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 1. Current status and projected future developments in bonding and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(4): 445-51.
2. Bezerra GL, Torres CR, Tonetto MR, Borges AH, Kuga MC, Bandeca MC, Firoozmand LM. Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Fixed with Remineralizing Adhesive Systems after Simulating One Year of Orthodontic Treatment. ScientificWorldJournal. 2015; 2015: 903451.
3. Guzman UA, Jerrold L, Vig PS, Abdelkarim A. Comparison of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index between precoated and conventionally bonded orthodontic brackets. Prog Orthod. 2013; 14: 39.
4. Hammad SM, El-Wassefy N, Maher A, Fawakerji SM. Effect of nanotechnology in self-etch bonding systems on the shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2017; 22: 47-56.
5. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119(6): 621-4.
6. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98(3): 214-21.
7. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116(1): 86-92.
8. Finnema KJ, Ozcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(5): 615-622 e3.
9. Hellak A, Ebeling J, Schauseil M, Stein S, Roggendorf M, Korbmacher-Steiner H. Shear Bond Strength of Three Orthodontic Bonding Systems on Enamel and Restorative Materials. Biomed Res Int. 2016; 2016: 6307107.
10. Vaheed NA, Gupta M, David SA, Sam G, Ramanna PK, Bhagvandas SC. In vitro Analysis of Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index of Stainless Steel Brackets with Different Adhesive Systems to Enamel. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2018; 19(9): 1047-1051.
11. Cochrane NJ, Lo TWG, Adams GG, Schneider PM. Quantitative analysis of enamel on debonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2017; 152(3): 312-319.
12. Pignatta LMB, Lugato ICPT, Bertoz FA, Santos ECA. Avaliação do Índice de Remanescente Adesivo utilizando braquetes com e sem tratamento na base e a interação com três sistemas de colagem. Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial. 2009; 14: 117-123.
13. Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod. 2009; 79(4): 773-6.
14. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85(4): 333-40.
15. Yamada R, Hayakawa T, Kasai K. Effect of using self-etching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2002; 72(6): 558-64.
16. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of a composite resin orthodontic adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2000; 70(6): 435-41.
17. Pham D, Bollu P, Chaudhry K, Subramani K. Comparative evaluation of orthodontic bracket base shapes on shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index: An in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017; 9(7): e848-e854.
18. Neves AM, Romano FL, Correr AB. Resistência ao cisalhamento da colagem dos compósitos Concise e Transbond XT com e sem agente de união. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics. 2011; 16: 63-68.
19. Pithon MM, Santos RLd, Oliveira MVd, Ruellas ACdO. Estudo comparativo in vitro da resistência ao cisalhamento da colagem e do índice de remanescente adesivo entre os compósitos Concise e Fill Magic. Revista Dental Press de Ortodontia e Ortopedia Facial. 2006; 11: 76-80.
20. Henkin FS, Macedo EO, Santos KD, Schwarzbach M, Samuel SM, Mundstock KS. In vitro analysis of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of different metal brackets. Dental Press J Orthod. 2016; 21(6): 67-73.
21. Kilponen L, Varrela J, Vallittu PK. Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets. Biomater Investig Dent. 2019; 6(1): 61-72.
22. Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, Wang DD, Lin LH, Lin CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004; 125(1): 65-70.
23. Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Ansar J, Bhandari R. Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016; 10(11): ZC64-ZC68.
24. Kang DY, Choi SH, Cha JY, Hwang CJ. Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system. Angle Orthod. 2013; 83(4): 705-11.
25. Blocher S, Frankenberger R, Hellak A, Schauseil M, Roggendorf MJ, Korbmacher-Steiner HM. Effect on enamel shear bond strength of adding microsilver and nanosilver particles to the primer of an orthodontic adhesive. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15: 42.
26. Devatha AB, Lakshmi MN, Kumar NB, Erukala S, Valluri R, Ealla KKR. A Comparative Study of Shear Bond Strength of Direct Bonding System with and without a Liquid Primer: An In Vitro Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2019; 11(Suppl 3): S515-S522.
27. Sajadi SS, Eslami Amirabadi G, Sajadi S. Effects of two soft drinks on shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index of orthodontic metal brackets. J Dent (Tehran). 2014; 11(4): 389-97.
28. Fonseca-Silva T, Otoni RP, Magalhães AAM, Ramos GM, Gomes TR, Rego TM, Araújo CTP, Santos CCO. Comparative analysis of shear bond strength of steel and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded with six different orthodontic adhesives. Int. J. Odontostom. 2020; 14(4): 658-663.