Bond failure and decalcification: A comparison of a cyanoacrylate and a composite resin bonding system in vivo.

Maxwell S. Fogel Department of Dental Medicine, Albert Einstein Medical Center, Phialdelphia, PA 19141-3098, USA.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (Impact Factor: 1.44). 06/2003; 123(6):624-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0889540603001963
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This prospective, in vivo study compared bond failure and enamel decalcification with a cyanoacrylate bracket bonding system (SmartBond, Gestenco International, Gothenburg, Sweden) and a traditional light-cured composite system (Light Bond, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill). A total of 327 teeth were evaluated after a period of 12 to 14 months; 163 experimental teeth were bonded with the cyanoacrylate bonding system, and 164 control teeth were bonded with the light-cured composite resin. All teeth were evaluated for breakage (bond failure). The average percentage of bracket failures with cyanoacrylate was 55.6% compared with 11.3% with composite resin (P <.001). All maxillary anterior teeth (94) were evaluated for enamel decalcification on a graded scale. Occurrence of enamel decalcification between the 2 bonding systems after 1 year of orthodontic treatment was similar. The cyanoacrylate bonding material had more than 4 times as many bond failures and a similar amount of decalcification as the traditional composite material. Cyanoacrylate as a routine orthodontic bonding agent is not a suitable bonding material for clinical practice at this time. It is important to test new bonding systems in vivo in several studies before using them in routine clinical practice.

Download full-text


Available from: Leonard E Braitman, Jul 06, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The two objectives of this experiment were to determine the surface temperature of enamel following acid etching, rinsing and drying, and to see whether two commercially available orthodontic brackets could be bonded to enamel using an anaerobic adhesive. Enamel surface temperature was determined in vivo using a surface temperature probe on a total of 60 patients. Stainless steel orthodontic brackets were bonded to human enamel using an anaerobic adhesive and a control orthodontic adhesive. The enamel was etched prior to bonding either with a solution of 37% o-phosphoric acid or, in the case of the anaerobic adhesive specimens, with a solution of 37% o-phosphoric acid containing copper (II) chloride. After bench curing the specimens were shear bond tested to failure and the load at debond recorded in each case. The bond test results were analyzed using median force to debond (N) and 95% confidence intervals, Kaplan-Meier survival probabilities and log-rank tests. After etching rinsing and drying the enamel surface temperature ranged from 21.54 to 24.19 degrees C, which is within the range suitable for anaerobic adhesive use. Bond testing to failure demonstrated that bracket base design affected the measured force to debond with both the anaerobic adhesive under test and the control adhesive. In addition, the anaerobic adhesive was affected by the material composition of the bracket base and curing time. After 1h of curing and using the Miniature Twin bracket, the measured force to debond exceeded the 10 min force to debond results of the control adhesive. It is possible to bond commercially available orthodontic brackets to teeth using an anaerobic adhesive.
    Dental Materials 03/2006; 22(2):112-8. DOI:10.1016/ · 4.16 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Previous in-vitro investigations reported no significant differences in the bond strength of brackets cured with conventional halogen lamps and those cured with light-emitting diodes (LED), even though LED curing times are much shorter. However, it is not known how LED curing performs in the oral cavity. The purpose of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with 2 light-curing units: a conventional halogen unit and an LED. Thirty patients treated with fixed appliances were included in this study. The bonding followed a contralateral quadrant pattern: in each patient, 2 quadrants were cured with the conventional halogen unit, and the other 2 quadrants were cured with the LED unit. The study had a single blind controlled design with a within-patient comparison of the 2 curing techniques, and the patients were allocated randomly. A total of 544 stainless steel brackets were examined for bracket failure. Location (tooth), cause, and date of failure were recorded over 15 months. Statistical analyses were performed with the Kaplan-Meier survival estimates and the log rank test. No statistically significant differences were found in total bond failure rate or in mean survival time between brackets cured with the halogen light and those cured with the LED. Neither were significant differences found between the 2 lights when the clinical performances of the maxillary and mandibular arches were compared, or when the posterior and anterior segments were compared. These results show that curing with an LED does not result in more bond failures or shorter time to failure when compared with conventional halogen light curing. Curing with an LED is an acceptable alternative to conventional halogen light curing.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 11/2007; 132(4):518-23. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.09.038 · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Enamel decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a persistent problem. Resin-based sealants have been developed to protect enamel from decalcification. The purpose of this in-vivo study was to compare the effect of a fluoride-releasing filled enamel sealant with that of an unfilled nonfluoride control. A total of 177 teeth in 18 patients were evaluated over a period of 12 to 18 months. A split-mouth design was used; half the teeth were treated with the fluoride-releasing sealant (Pro Seal, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Itasca, Ill), and the contralateral teeth received the control (Transbond MIP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The teeth were photographed before (T1) and after (T2) treatment. A panel of 12 orthodontic faculty and residents evaluated the photographs for decalcification on a graded scale. Sixty-nine percent of the teeth treated with Pro Seal showed progressive decalcification from T1 to T2 vs 72% of those treated with Transbond MIP. In the comparison of the contralateral paired teeth, there was a small average net disadvantage of -0.06 of a tooth per patient (95% CI, -0.97 to 0.85) for Pro Seal compared with Transbond MIP. That difference of 0.06 of a tooth is neither statistically significant (P = 0.90) nor clinically important. The 2 products tested were equivalent in their inhibition of decalcification during orthodontic treatment. The additional time and expense of using the fluoride-releasing sealant to prevent decalcification does not appear to be justified.
    American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 06/2010; 137(6):796-800. DOI:10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.11.025 · 1.44 Impact Factor