Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands
There is insufficient evidence to determine the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth in patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances Orthodontic treatment involves using fixed or removable appliances (braces) on teeth to correct their position. It has been shown that the quality of treatment result obtained with fixed dental appliances is much better than with removable appliances. The success of a fixed dental appliance depends on the metal attachments (brackets and bands) being securely attached to the teeth so that they do not become loose during treatment. Brackets are usually attached to teeth other than molars, where bands (metal rings that go round the teeth) are more commonly used. There is insufficient evidence with regard to the most effective adhesive for attaching orthodontic bands to molar teeth.
Available from: portal.dimdi.de
Available from: nature.com
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This was a randomised controlled clinical trial (RCT) in a UK district general hospital.
The interventions tested were orthodontic brackets bonded with standard light-cured hydrophobic primer [acid etch (AE); Transbond XT, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA] compared with self-etching primer (SEP; Transbond-Plus, 3M Unitek). Both groups used Transbond XT paste(3M Unitek) and curing light.
The primary outcome was first-time bracket failure recorded by date and tooth number. Secondary outcomes were mandibular and maxillary bracket failures and the time taken to bond the bracket.
There were no statistical differences in failure rates between SEP (4.8%) and AE (3.5%). Bonding time per bracket with SEP was significantly lower at 75.5 s (95% confidence interval, 72.9-78.5) in the SEP compared with the AE group (97.7 s; 95% confidence interval, 94.3-101.2).
There was no difference in the failure rates of brackets bonded with either SEP or conventional AE using Transbond XT paste. Bonding with SEP was significantly faster than using conventional AE.
Evidence-based dentistry 02/2008; 9(3):79-80. DOI:10.1038/sj.ebd.6400598
Available from: Joseph Bouserhal
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic bracket when bonded to pre-conditioned and intact enamel using a self-etching primer within 6 hours and after thermal cycling.
One hundred and twenty freshly-extracted human teeth were divided into four groups according to how the buccal surface to be bonded had been pre-conditioned: 1) acid-etched with 37% phosphoric acid, 2) sand-blasted with 50 microns aluminum-oxide, 3) matted with diamond burr, and 4) intact enamel used as control. Orthodontic metal brackets were bonded to the teeth using the same composite resin (Transbond XT) and self-etching primer (Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer). Brackets were debonded within 6 hours or after thermal cycling for 2500 times (5 degrees C--37 degrees C--55 degrees C). Shear bond strength was measured on a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 3 mm/min. The bracket-failure interface was quantified according to the modified adhesive remnant index score (ARI). Data were analyzed using the two-way ANOVA test, Scheffé confidence interval of differences of means, and the chi-square test (p < 0.05).
All the pre-conditioned groups showed significantly higher shear bond strength before and after thermal cycling than the control group. There was no significant correlation between thermal cycling and shear bond strength. The ARI scores revealed that the bond failed primarily on the adhesive-enamel interface in all groups before and after thermal cycling, with the exception of the acid-etched group, whose bonds failed mainly on the adhesive-bracket interface after thermal cycling.
The authors recommend that the enamel be preconditioned before applying the self-etching primer when greater shear bond strength is desired.
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie 10/2008; 69(5):383-92. DOI:10.1007/s00056-008-0812-8 · 0.83 Impact Factor
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.