Ramírez OD, Sáez EG

Language: Spanish
References: 14
Page: 88-94
PDF size: 230.41 Kb.

ABSTRACT

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with two systems of hydrophilic adhesives: (I) a cyanoacrylate adhesive (Smartbond, International Gestenco) and (II) a composite system (Transbond XT and Transbond^™ IPM) in two enamel conditions: dry and artificial saliva contaminated. Materials and methods: 100 extracted premolars were stored in distilled water at 4 degrees Celsius. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and convenience distributed into 5 groups: (1) composite resin in enamel under dry conditions, (2) cyanoacrylate adhesive in dry enamel condition, (3) composite resin in enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva before the primer, (4) composite resin enamel condition contaminated with artificial saliva after the primer, and (5) cyanoacrylate adhesive in artificial saliva contaminated enamel condition. The results showed that the adhesive system Transbond XT^™ and Transbond MIP obtained the highest values of resistance to debonding in the dry enamel surface. Conclusions: The adhesive system Transbond XT^™ and Transbond MIP I provide an adequate in vitro resistance to debonding in every enamel condition. The system based on cyanoacrylate adhesive Smartbond obtained proper values of resistance to debonding in dry enamel, however it obtained the lowest values in contaminated with enamel artificial saliva conditions, unsuitable for orthodontics, and even some samples were not cemented successfully in vitro under these conditions.

REFERENCES

1. Silverman E, Cohen M, Anthony G, Dietz V. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. American Journal of orthodontics. 1972; 62: 236-244.

2. Cova NJL. Resinas compuestas, biomateriales dentales. Madrid, España: Ed. Amolca; 2004. pp. 232-236.

3. Silverstone LM, Hicks MJ, Featherstone MJ. Oral fluid contamination of etched enamel surfaces: an SEM study. J Am Dent Assoc. 1985; 110: 329-332.

4. Technical specifications sheet. Smartbond. Goteborg, Sweden: Gestenco International; 1997.

5. Cueto HI. Little bit of history: the first direct bondingin orthodontia. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98 (3): 276-277.

6. Dental materials-Testing of adhesion to tooth structure. ISO/TS 11405:2003(E).

7. López PE, Sáez EG, Álvarez GCA. Desarrollo de un adhesivo con base trimetilol propano de trimetacrilato (TMP-TMA) con posible aplicación ortodóncica [Tesis]. México: Maestría en Ciencias Odontológicas, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; 2011.

8. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85: 333-340.

9. Webster MJ, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Khajotia SS, Sinha PK. The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001; 119: 54-58.

10. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br JOrthod. 1975; 2: 171-178.

11. Örtendahl TW, Örtengren U. A new orthodontic bonding adhesive. J Clin Orthod. 2000; 34: 50-54.

12. Nemeth BR, Wiltshire WA, Lavelle CLV. Shear/peel bond strength of orthodontic attachments to moist and dry enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 129: 396-401.

13. Öztoprak MO, Isik F, Sayinsu K, Arun T, Aydemir B. Effect of blood and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of brackets bonded with 4 adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131: 238-242.

14. Al-Munajed MK, Gordon PH, McCabe JF. The use of a cyanoacrylate adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets: an ex-vivo study. Journal of Orthodontics. 2000; 27: 255-260.