-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Self-etching primers (SEPs) have been used successfully during bonding to reduce technique sensitivity while minimizing the etching of enamel. Although serving the same purpose, SEPs differ in acidity and aggressiveness. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine whether the pH of SEPs affects the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
Forty-five molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into 3 groups with different SEPs: in group 1 (control), 15 orthodontic brackets were bonded to the teeth with Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) with a pH of about 1.0; in group 2, 15 brackets were bonded with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) with a pH of 0.9 to 1.0; in group 3, 15 brackets were bonded with Clearfil S3 Bond (Kuraray America, New York, NY), with a pH of 2.7. All teeth were bonded with Transbond XT paste (3M Unitek). The teeth were debonded within half an hour after initial bonding by using a universal testing machine. The residual adhesive on each tooth was evaluated. ANOVA was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the 3 groups, and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the 3 groups.
ANOVA indicated significant differences between the groups. The Duncan multiple range test indicated that Clearfil S3 Bond produced a significantly stronger mean SBS (6.5 +/- 1.9 MPa) than the Transbond Plus system (mean, 4.2 +/- 1.9 MPa). No significant differences were seen between the SBS of the brackets bonded with Adper (mean, 5.9 +/- 3.4 MPa) and the other 2 groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores between the 3 groups indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different.
The SEP with the highest pH (least acidic), Clearfil S3 Bond, bonded brackets successfully and with the strongest SBS; this suggests that the pH of the SEP is not the primary determinant of the SBS. The clinician should be aware that some SEPs can leave the enamel surface healthier after debonding.
American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics: official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics 09/2008; 134(2):203-8. · 1.33 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine the shear bond strength of a new resin glass ionomer adhesive with higher fluoride release properties when bonding orthodontic brackets.
Sixty freshly extracted human molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleaned and polished. The teeth were randomly separated into three groups according to the enamel conditioner/etchant and adhesive used. Group I: 20 teeth conditioned with 10% polyacrylic acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group II: 20 teeth conditioned with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive. Group III (control): 20 teeth etched with 37% phosphoric acid and brackets bonded with a composite adhesive.
The results of the analysis of variance comparing the three experimental groups (F = 10.294) indicated the presence of significant differences between the three groups (P = .0001). The shear bond strengths were significantly lower in the two groups bonded with the new glass ionomer adhesive whether conditioned with polyacrylic acid ( x = 3.2 +/- 1.8 MPa) or phosphoric acid (x = 2.3 +/- 1.1 MPa), while the mean shear bond strength of the composite adhesive was 5.2 +/- 2.9 MPa.
Although the increased fluoride release from the new glass ionomer has the potential of decreasing decalcification around orthodontic brackets, the shear bond strength of the material is relatively low.
The Angle Orthodontist 02/2008; 78(1):125-8. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets when the self-etching primer (SEP) and the bracket adhesive are light cured either separately or simultaneously.
Seventy-five human molars were randomly divided into five equal groups. Brackets precoated with Transbond XT composite adhesive were used. The five protocols were: Group 1 (control), the SEP Transbond Plus was applied, brackets placed, and adhesive light cured for 20 seconds; Group 2, SEP Adper Prompt L-Pop was applied, light cured, brackets placed, and light cured; Group 3, the same SEP as in Group 2 was used, however, the SEP and bracket adhesive were light cured together; Group 4, SEP Clearfil S3 Bond was applied, light cured, brackets placed, and light cured; and Group 5, the same SEP as in group 4 was used, however, the SEP and the adhesive were light cured together. The teeth were debonded using a universal testing machine, and the enamel was examined for residual adhesive. Analysis of variance was used to compare the SBS.
The SBS of Clearfil S3 Bond after one light cure and two light cures were significantly greater than the bonds of brackets using Transbond Plus. Brackets bonded using Adper Prompt L-Pop after one light cure and two light cures were not significantly different from the other groups. The groups did not differ significantly in their bracket failure modes.
Only one light curing application is needed to successfully bond brackets when using SEPs and adhesives. This approach can potentially reduce technique sensitivity as well as chair time.
The Angle Orthodontist 06/2007; 77(3):504-8. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the effects of a standardized thermocycling protocol on the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive systems: a resin-modified glass ionomer and a composite resin used with a new self-etching primer.
Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups. In group 1, brackets were bonded to the teeth using Fuji Ortho LC adhesive, and in group 2, the Transbond Plus system was used. The teeth were stored in water at 37 degrees C for 24 hours, thermocycled between 5 and 55 degrees C, and debonded using a universal testing machine. The enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS and the chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores.
The mean SBS for the brackets bonded using the Fuji Ortho LC was 6.4 +/- 4.5 MPa, and the mean SBS for the Transbond Plus system was 6.1 +/- 3.2 MPa. The result of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.207) indicated that there was no significant difference (P = .837) between the two groups. The comparisons of the ARI scores (chi(2) = 0.195) indicated that bracket failure mode was not significantly different (P = .907) between the two adhesives.
Although SBS and ARI scores were not significantly different for the two adhesives, clinicians need to take into consideration the other properties of the adhesives before using them.
The Angle Orthodontist 04/2007; 77(2):337-41. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To compare the shear bond strength of a nano-hybrid restorative material, Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany), to that of a traditional adhesive material (Transbond XT; 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) when bonding orthodontic brackets.
Forty teeth were randomly divided into 2 groups: 20 teeth were bonded with the Transbond adhesive system and the other 20 teeth with the Grandio restorative system, following manufacturer's instructions. Student t test was used to compare the shear bond strength of the 2 systems. Significance was predetermined at P 5 .05.
The t test comparisons (t = 0.55) of the shear bond strength between the 2 adhesives indicated the absence of a significant (P = .585) difference. The mean shear bond strength for Grandio was 4.1 +/- 2.6 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. During debonding, 3 of 20 brackets (15%) bonded with Grandio failed without registering any force on the Zwick recording. None of the brackets bonded with Transbond XT had a similar failure mode.
The newly introduced nano-filled composite materials can potentially be used to bond orthodontic brackets to teeth if its consistency can be more flowable to readily adhere to the bracket base.
World journal of orthodontics 02/2007; 8(1):8-12.
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine whether a self-adhesive universal cement, RelyX Unicem (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), can be used successfully to bond orthodontic brackets to enamel.
Forty human molars were cleaned, mounted, and randomly divided into two groups: 20 orthodontic brackets were bonded to teeth using RelyX Unicem, and 20 brackets were bonded using the Transbond XT (3M Unitex, Monrovia, Calif) adhesive system. The teeth were debonded within 30 minutes after initial bonding using a universal testing machine. After debonding, the enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine the amount of residual adhesive remaining on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of the two groups, and the chi-square test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores for the two adhesive systems.
The mean SBS of the brackets bonded using the RelyX Unicem was 3.7 +/- 2.1 MPa and was significantly lower (t = 2.07, P = .048) than the SBS of the brackets bonded with the Transbond system (x = 5.97 +/- 4.2 MPa). The comparisons of the ARI scores between the two groups (chi(2) = 17.4) indicated that bracket failure mode was significantly different (P = .002) with more adhesive remaining on the teeth bonded with Transbond XT.
The SBS of the self-adhesive universal cement needs to be increased for it to be successfully used for bonding orthodontic brackets.
The Angle Orthodontist 08/2006; 76(4):689-93. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Orthodontic brackets adhesive systems use three different agents, an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they combine the conditioning, priming, and adhesive agents into a single application. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of using one-step and two-step self-etch primer/adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to one of two protocols. Group I (control): a two-step self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system was used, Transbond Plus was applied to the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer. The brackets were bonded with Transbond XT and light cured for 20 seconds. Group II: a one-step self-etch, self-adhesive resin cement system, Maxcem, was applied directly to the bracket. The self-etch primer/adhesive is made of two components that mix automatically during application. The brackets were then light cured for 20 seconds. The mean shear bond strength of the two-step acid-etch primer/adhesive was 5.9 +/- 2.7 Mpa and the mean for the one-step system was 3.1 +/- 1.7 MPa. The in vitro findings of this study indicated that the shear bond strengths (t = 3.79) of the two adhesive systems were significantly different (P = .001). One-step adhesive systems could potentially be advantageous for orthodontic purposes if their bond strength can be improved.
The Angle Orthodontist 02/2006; 76(1):123-6. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of enamel bleaching on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a composite adhesive.
Two protocols were used on 60 human molars. In the at-home bleaching group (n = 30), Opalescence bleaching agent (Ultradent, South Jordan, Utah), which contains 10% carbamide peroxide, was brushed onto the teeth daily for 14 days and left for 6 hours each day. Teeth in the in-office group (n = 30) were treated with Zoom! (Discus Dental, Culver City, Calif), which contains 25% hydrogen peroxide gel, and then exposed to a light source for 20 minutes; these teeth were treated twice. After bleaching, the specimens were randomly divided into equal subgroups and stored in artificial saliva at 37 degrees C for 7 or 14 days before bonding. Shear bond strength testing was performed on all teeth. The Kruskal-Wallis test for nonparametric means was used to determine whether significant differences existed between the various subgroups and an unbleached control group.
The mean shear bond strength for the control group was 5.6 +/- 1.8 MPa. Means for the at-home groups were 5.2 +/- 3.6 MPa and 7.2 +/- 3.2 MPa for the 7- and 14-day waiting periods, respectively. Means for the in-office groups were 5.1 +/- 5.3 MPa and 6.6 +/- 2.6 MPa for the 7- and 14-day waiting periods, respectively. The Kruskal-Wallis test (X(2) = 8.089) indicated no significant differences between the 5 subgroups (P = .088).
The results showed that in-office and at-home bleaching did not affect the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 01/2006; 128(6):755-60. · 1.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Conventional adhesive systems use 3 different agents, an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin during the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel. A characteristic of some new bonding systems is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application as well as precoat the bracket with the adhesive in an attempt to save time during the bonding procedure. This study compared the total bonding time and shear bond strength (SBS) of 2 bracket-bonding systems: (1) an integrated system that incorporates a self-etching primer and precoated brackets and (2) a conventional system in which the etchant and primer are applied separately and the adhesive applied to the bracket by the clinician. The results of the SBS and the total bonding time comparisons (t = 3.451) of the 2 adhesive systems showed a significant difference (P = .0001). The mean SBS was 9.4+/-3.7 MPa for the new bonding system and 6.2+/-4.4 MPa for the conventional system. The mean total bonding time was 36.5 s/tooth for the new system and 46.7 s/tooth for the conventional system. The clinician has to decide whether the increase in bond strength, the decrease in the total bonding time, and the steps saved during the bonding procedure with the new bonding system balance the increased cost incurred.
The Angle Orthodontist 04/2005; 75(2):237-42. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: As new adhesives, composite resins, and bonding techniques were introduced, orthodontists adopted some of these innovations and added them to their armamentarium. The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two adhesive materials; one with an organically modified ceramic matrix, Admira (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and another that contains the traditional Bis GMA matrix namely Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). The new materials have a lower wear rate and are more biocompatible than traditional composites. Forty molar teeth were randomly divided into two groups: 20 teeth bonded with the Transbond adhesive system and the other 20 teeth with the Admira bonding system. Student's t-test was used to compare the SBS of the two adhesives. Significance was predetermined at P < or = .05. The results of the t-test comparisons (t = 0.489) of the SBS indicated that there was no significant (P = .628) difference between the two adhesives tested. The mean SBS for Admira was 5.1 +/- 3.3 MPa and that for Transbond XT was 4.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. It was concluded that the new material, Ormocer, which is an organically modified ceramic restorative material can potentially have orthodontic applications if available in a more flowable paste. These new materials are more biocompatible and have lower wear rate including bonding orthodontic brackets to teeth.
The Angle Orthodontist 02/2005; 75(1):106-8. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study compared the shear bond strengths of two metallic orthodontic brackets, one with a single-mesh bracket base and the other with a double-mesh bracket base. The Transbond XT adhesive system was used to bond all brackets to the teeth. Two types of brackets were compared, ie, 20 Ovation metal bracket series, with a double-mesh base (Super-mesh) and an 81.50 gauge (0.126 inch), and 20 Victory series metal brackets that have a miniature single-mesh base. The teeth were bonded and debonded within half an hour from the initial bonding. The enamel surface was examined under 10x magnification to determine how much residual adhesive remained on the tooth. Student's t-test was used to compare the shear bond strength of the two groups. Chi-square test was used to compare the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores for the two bracket types. The mean shear bond strength for the double-mesh brackets was 5.2 +/- 3.9 MPa and for the single-mesh brackets was 5.8 +/- 2.8 MPa. The t-test comparisons indicated that they were not significantly different from each other (P = .157). The ARI comparisons indicated that both bracket types had similar bracket failure modes and were not significantly different from each other (chi2 = 2.0, P = .5). These results indicated that single- and double-mesh bracket bases have comparable shear bond strength and bracket failure modes.
The Angle Orthodontist 07/2004; 74(3):400-4. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Conventional adhesive systems use 3 different agents-an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin for bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems in operative dentistry is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application. Combining conditioning and priming saves time and should be more cost-effective to the clinician and indirectly to the patient. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of mix and no-mix self-etch primers/bonding systems on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human molars according to the following protocols. In group I, a self-etch acidic primer/adhesive system, Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), was applied on the enamel surface as suggested by the manufacturer; it has 2 components that must be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT and light-cured for 20 seconds. In group II, a no-mix self-etch bracket adhesive system, Ideal 1 (GAG International, Islandia, NY), was applied to the teeth as suggested by the manufacturer. The self-etch primer has 1 component that does not need to be mixed before use. The brackets were then bonded with the adhesive and light-cured for 20 seconds. The in vitro findings indicated that the shear bond strength comparisons (t = 0.681) of the 2 adhesive systems were not significantly different (P =.501). The mean shear bond strength of the 2-component acid etch primer was 5.9 +/- 2.7 MPa, and the mean for the 1-component system was 6.6 +/- 3.2 MPa. The clinician should consider the bond strength and the ease of application of the various components of the bracket bonding systems available on the market.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 04/2004; 125(3):348-50. · 1.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of thermocycling on the shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate adhesive system, specifically 24 hours after bonding when the adhesive has achieved most of its bond strength and after thermocycling. Forty freshly extracted human molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and randomly separated into 2 groups: group I, cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded after 24 hours immersion in deionized water at 37 degrees C; and group II, cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded after thermocycling at 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C. The results of the t test comparing the 2 groups (t = 6.84) indicated significant differences between them (P =.0001). The cyanoacrylate adhesive at 24 hours had significantly greater shear bond strength (macro x = 7.1 +/- 3.3 MPa) than after thermocycling 500 times between 5 degrees C and 55 degrees C (macro x = 1.5 +/- 1.4 MPa). The findings indicated that the cyanoacrylate adhesive tested has clinically adequate shear bond strength at 24 hours after initial bonding but loses about 80% of its strength after thermocycling. The clinician should consider all properties of the adhesive, including no need for a curing light, working time of 5 seconds before the adhesive starts to set, and the significant decrease in bond strength after thermocycling.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 02/2003; 123(1):21-4. · 1.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Conventional adhesive systems use three different agents--an enamel conditioner, a primer solution, and an adhesive resin--during the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel. A unique characteristic of some new bonding systems in operative dentistry is that they combine the conditioning and priming agents into a single application. Combining conditioning and priming saves time and should be more cost-effective to the clinician and indirectly to the patient. The purpose of this study was to assess and compare the effects of self-etching primers, including a fluoride-releasing primer, on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. The brackets were bonded to extracted human teeth according to one of four protocols. In group 1 (control), teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid; after the sealant was applied, the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and light cured for 20 seconds. In group 2, a self-etch acidic primer (3M ESPE, St Paul, Minn) was applied as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded with Transbond XT as in the first group. In group 3, an experimental self-etch primer EXL #547 (3M ESPE) was applied to the teeth as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded as in groups 1 and 2. In group 4, a fluoride-releasing self-etch primer, One-Up Bond F (J. Mortia, USA Inc. Irvine, Calif) that also has a novel dye-sensitized photo polymerization initiator system was applied as suggested by the manufacturer, and the brackets were then bonded as in the other groups. The present in vitro findings indicated that the shear bond strengths of the four groups were significantly different (P = .001). Duncan multiple range tests indicated that One-Up Bond F (mean +/- SD strength, 5.1+/-2.5 MPa) and Prompt L-Pop (strength, 7.1+/-4.4 MPa) had significantly lower shear bond strengths than both the EXL #547 self-etch primer (strength, 9.7+/-3.7 MPa) or the phosphoric acid etch and the conventional adhesive system (strength, 10.4+/-2.8 MPa).
The Angle Orthodontist 07/2002; 72(3):199-202. · 1.21 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: One problem clinicians face during treatment is bracket failure. In a busy orthodontic practice, a significant number of teeth will need to be rebonded. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of repeated bonding with 2 different adhesives, a composite and a cyanoacrylate, on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Thirty-one freshly extracted human molars were collected. Brackets were bonded with 1 of the orthodontic adhesives according to the manufacturer's instructions. In group I, the teeth were etched with 37% phosphoric acid, a sealant was applied, and the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and light cured for 20 seconds. In group II, the teeth were etched with 35% phosphoric acid, and the brackets were bonded with SmartBond (Gestenco International, Göthenburg, Sweden). In each group, the teeth were bonded and debonded 3 times with the same adhesive. At each sequence, the brackets were removed within 30 minutes after bonding to simulate the clinical condition at which a newly bonded bracket is tied to the archwire. Student t tests and the analysis of variance repeated measure were used to compare the shear bond strength between adhesives and within each adhesive at different debonding sequences. The results indicated that, at the first debonding sequence, the 2 adhesives did not have significantly different shear bond strengths. Between debonding sequence 1 and 2, there was a significant (P <or=.05) decrease in the shear bond strength of both adhesives. SmartBond decreased from x = 5.7 +/- 3.8 MPa to x = 2.2 +/- 2.6 MPa, and Transbond decreased from x = 6.1 +/- 3.4 to x = 4.1 +/- 2.3 MPa. When the 2 adhesives were compared at the second debonding sequence, the shear bond strength of Transbond was significantly greater than that of SmartBond (P =.046). Between debonding sequences 2 and 3, there were no significant differences either between the adhesives or in the change within each adhesive. The highest values for shear bond strength were obtained after the initial bonding. Rebonded teeth had significantly lower shear bond strength. The composite adhesive had a higher shear bond strength than the cyanoacrylate adhesive at the second bonding/debonding sequence but not at the third. The changes in bond strength after repeated bonding may be related to changes in the morphologic characteristics of the tooth surface caused by adhesive remnants.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 05/2002; 121(5):521-5. · 1.38 Impact Factor
-
[show abstract]
[hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of time on the shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate system and a composite adhesive system (1) within half an hour after bonding the bracket to the tooth, and (2) after 24 hours from the time of bonding when the adhesive had achieved most of its bond strength. Eighty freshly extracted molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleansed, polished, and randomly separated into 4 groups: (I), cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded within one-half hour from initial bonding; (II), cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded after 24 hours immersion in deionized water at 37 degrees C; (III), composite adhesive debonded within one-half hour from initial bonding; (IV), composite adhesive debonded after 24 hours immersion in deionized water at 37 degrees C. The results of the analysis of variance comparing the 4 experimental groups (F = 12.68) indicated significant differences between them (P =.0001). The composite adhesive at 24 hours had significantly greater shear bond strength than did the other 3 groups. In general, the shear bond strengths were greater in the 2 groups debonded after 24 hours. This was true for both the cyanoacrylate ((-)x 7.1 +/- 3.3 megaPascals [MPa]) and the composite ((-)x 10.4 +/- 2.8 MPa) adhesives. On the other hand, the shear bond strength was significantly lower in the 2 groups debonded within one-half hour of their initial bonding. The bond strength of the cyanoacrylate adhesive ((-)x 5.8 +/- 2.4 MPa) was not significantly different from that of the composite ((-)x 5.2 +/- 2.9 MPa) adhesive. Our findings indicated that the cyanoacrylate and the composite adhesives tested have clinically adequate shear bond strengths at half an hour and at 24 hours after initial bonding. The clinician needs to consider the properties of each adhesive: eg, the need to use a curing light and the ability to have more working time with the composite adhesive versus no light but only a 5-second working time before the cyanoacrylate adhesive starts to set.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics 04/2002; 121(3):297-300. · 1.38 Impact Factor
