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.

  • [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
  • 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
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The splinting of traumatised teeth can be difficult in the emergency department where access to dentally trained clinicians and equipment may be limited. We report the use of a readily available medical tissue adhesive (n-butyl 2-cyanoacrylate) as a material for temporary dental splinting, and discuss its suitability for the task.
    British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 09/2011; 49(6):483-5. DOI:10.1016/j.bjoms.2010.07.009 · 1.13 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Available from
May 21, 2014