Adhesive thickness effects on the bond strength of a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement
Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ondokuz Mayis University, Samsun, Turkey.The Angle Orthodontist (Impact Factor: 1.23). 03/2005; 75(2):254-9. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(2005)075<0250:ATEOTB>2.0.CO;2
These in vitro studies investigated the effect of adhesive thickness on the tensile and shear bond strength of a light-cured, resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (FO). A light-cured conventional composite resin (CO) was used as the control material. Mesh-based metal brackets were bonded to extracted human premolars using FO and CO. The adhesive thickness was controlled by a special device and 0, 0.25, and 0.5 mm thicknesses were tested for both bonding agents. All bonded specimens were stored in distilled water at 37 degrees C for 48 hours and thermocycled between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C for 200 cycles before testing. Analysis of variance showed that bond strength was significantly affected by the adhesive thickness (P < .001) and type of adhesive (P = .001). There were statistically significant differences between the mean bond strengths of the groups at the P < .05 level of significance. For all adhesive thicknesses, CO had higher bond strength values than those of FO in both test modes. The bond strength values were also analyzed using a Weibull analysis, which showed the most favorable adhesive thickness, and the 5% and 90% probabilities of failures was 0.25 mm in the FO groups. Bracket-adhesive interface failure was predominant for all groups in tensile testing, but enamel-adhesive interface failures increased with increased adhesive thickness in shear testing for the FO. This study suggests that adhesive thickness under a bracket could be particularly important when using a FO in direct bonding.
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "A small amount of Transbond XT resin (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) was placed on the bracket's mesh, and the brackets were then immediately placed in the centres of the vestibular surfaces. Previous studies (Arici et al., 2005; Muguruma et al., 2010) have shown that the resin thickness affect the bond strength; thus, a force of 453.59 g was applied to the centre of each bracket aided by a Gillmore needle to standardize the resin thickness. "
ABSTRACT: Objective: To determine the influence on shear bond strength and bond failure location of four cleaning methods for orthodontic bracket custom bases. Design: In vitro laboratory study. Material and methods: Eighty bovine teeth were divided at random into four groups. The bracket custom bases were cleaned with different methods: group 1 with methyl methacrylate monomer, group 2 with acetone, group 3 with 50 μm aluminium oxide particles and group 4 with detergent. The brackets were indirectly bonded onto the teeth with the Sondhi Rapid-Set self-curing adhesive. The maximum required shear bond strength to debond the brackets was recorded. The bond failure location was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) analysis (P<0·05) was used to detect significant differences in the bond strength. Kaplan-Meier survival plots and log-rank test were done to compare the survival distribution between the groups. The Kruskal-Wallis test (P<0·05) was used to evaluate the differences in the ARI scores. Results: The mean bond strengths in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4 were 23·7±5·0, 25·3±5·1, 25·6±3·7 and 25·7±4·2 MPa, respectively. There were no significant statistically differences in either the bond strength or the ARI score between the groups. Conclusion: The four custom base-cleaning methods presented the same efficiencies on indirect bond of the brackets; thus, practitioners can choose the method that works best for them.Journal of Orthodontics 02/2014; 41(3). DOI:10.1179/1465313313Y.0000000090
[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
- "The thickness of the adhesive layer (Evans and Powers, 1985; Arici et al., 2005), the degree of monomer conversion of the adhesive layer (Shinya et al., 2009), and the integrity of the marginal bracket–adhesive–enamel complex (Ulker et al., 2009) are all factors that have been investigated. Studies in operative dentistry have shown that the application of a sustained force during the bonding process affects the adhesive layer and improves the bond strength mainly because it reduces fluid interference from the underlying dentine (Chieffi et al., 2006, 2007; Goracci et al., 2006). "
ABSTRACT: The objective of this research was to investigate the effect of applying a sustained seating force during bonding on the adhesive layer and on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. Forty human premolars divided into two groups were included in the study. Stainless steel brackets were bonded to the premolars with Transbond XT light cure adhesive and Transbond Plus Self Etch Primer (SEP). The brackets in both groups were subjected to an initial seating force of 300 g for 3 seconds, sufficient to position the bracket. The seating force was maintained throughout the 40 seconds of light curing in group 2. SBS was tested 24 hours after bracket bonding with a shear blade using an Instron testing unit at a crosshead speed of 2 mm/minute. A Student's t-test was used to compare the bond strength of the two groups and a chi-square test to compare the frequencies of the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores. The mean SBS was significantly different between the two groups (P=0.025). The bond strength was higher (mean 8.15±0.89 MPa) in group 2 compared with group 1 (mean 7.39±1.14 MPa). There was no significant difference (P=0.440) in the ARI scores between the two groups. Applying a sustained seating force during orthodontic bracket bonding improves bond strength but does not change the distribution of the ARI scores.The European Journal of Orthodontics 10/2010; 33(4):402-6. DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjq096 · 1.48 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The aim of this research is to use finite element analysis (FEA) to quantify the effect of the sample shape and the imperfections induced during the manufacturing process of samples on the bond strength and modes of failure of dental adhesive systems through microtensile test. Using the FEA prediction for individual parameters effect, estimation of expected variation and spread of the microtensile bond strength results for different sample geometries is made. The estimated stress distributions for three different sample shapes, hourglass, stick and dumbbell predicted by FEA are used to predict the strength for different fracture modes. Parameters such as the adhesive thickness, uneven interface of the adhesive and composite and dentin, misalignment of axis of loading, the existence of flaws such as induced cracks during shaping the samples or bubbles created during application of the adhesive are considered. Microtensile experiments are performed simultaneously to measure bond strength and modes of failure. These are compared with the FEA results. The relative bonding strength and its standard deviation for the specimens with different geometries measured through the microtensile tests confirm the findings of the FEA. The hourglass shape samples show lower tensile bond strength and standard deviation compared to the stick and dumbbell shape samples. ANOVA analysis confirms no significant difference between dumbbell and stick geometry results, and major differences of these two geometries compared to hourglass shape measured values. Induced flaws in the adhesive and misalignment of the angle of application of load have significant effect on the microtensile bond strength. Using adhesive with higher modulus the differences between the bond strength of the three sample geometries increase. The result of the research clarifies the importance of the sample geometry chosen in measuring the bond strength. It quantifies the effect of the imperfections on the bond strength for each of the sample geometries through a systematic and all embracing study. The results explain the reasons of the large spread of the microtensile test results reported by various researchers working in different labs and the need for standardization of the test method and sample shape used in evaluation of the dentin-adhesive bonding system.Dental Materials 05/2008; 24(4):536-47. DOI:10.1016/j.dental.2007.06.022 · 3.77 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.