Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing

Adhäsiv ohne Primer vs. selbsthaftender Kunststoff: Haftfestigkeit nach LED-Aushärtung

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics / Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The goal of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure modes of three different adhesive resins following the use of two different dental curing light units.

Methods

A total of 160 human premolars were randomly divided into four groups (N = 40 for each): group 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) adhesive paste; group 2, Heliosit Orthodontic paste with no primer; group 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) self-adhesive resin with prior etching; group 4, Maxcem Elite self-adhesive resin with no etching. Each group was further divided into 2 subgroups: half (named “a”) were cured with VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA), and the other half (named “b”) with the Elipar LED unit (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). The brackets were submitted to SBS testing 24 h after bonding. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores and bonding time were also measured. Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal–Wallis tests were used for statistical analysis.

Results

No significant differences in SBS were observed when comparing the two different LED devices within the same bonding material. The mean SBS of group 1 was significantly higher compared to groups 2, 3, and 4 (p < 0.001). Mean SBS values of groups 2 and 3 were significantly higher than that of group 4 (p < 0.001). ARI scores were significantly different in groups 4a and 4b compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). Group 4a showed significantly lower bonding time/tooth compared to the other groups except to groups 3a and 4b (p < 0.001).

Conclusions

Decreasing curing time using high-power LED device did not significantly affect SBS. However, the composite type did affect SBS.

Zusammenfassung

Ziel

Ziel dieser Studie war der Vergleich der Scherhaftfestigkeit (SBS) und der Versagensmodi von 3 verschiedenen Adhäsiven nach der Verwendung von 2 unterschiedlichen Lichthärtegeräten.

Methoden

Insgesamt 160 menschliche Prämolaren wurden randomisiert in 4 Gruppen aufgeteilt (jeweils n = 40): Gruppe 1, Transbond™ XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) Adhäsivpaste; Gruppe 2, Heliosit Orthodontic Paste ohne Primer; Gruppe 3, Maxcem Elite (Kerr, Orange, CA, USA) selbstadhäsiver Kunststoff mit vorheriger Ätzung; Gruppe 4, Maxcem Elite selbstadhäsiver Kunststoff ohne Ätzung. Jede Gruppe wurde weiter in 2 Untergruppen unterteilt: Die Hälfte (genannt „a“) wurde mit VALO LED (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA) ausgehärtet, die andere Hälfte (genannt „b“) mit dem Elipar LED Gerät (3M Unitek LED, Monrovia, CA, USA). Die Brackets wurden 24 h nach dem Bonding einem SBS-Test unterzogen. Außerdem wurden die Werte für den Adhäsivrestindex (ARI) und die Verklebungszeit gemessen. Für die statistische Analyse wurden die Zwei-Wege-Varianzanalyse (ANOVA) und der Kruskal-Wallis-Test verwendet.

Ergebnisse

Beim Vergleich der beiden verschiedenen LED-Geräte mit demselben Bondingmaterial wurden keine signifikanten Unterschiede im SBS festgestellt. Der mittlere SBS-Wert der Gruppe 1 war im Vergleich zu denen der Gruppen 2, 3 und 4 signifikant höher (p < 0,001). Die mittleren SBS-Werte der Gruppen 2 und 3 waren signifikant höher als die der Gruppe 4 (p < 0,001). Die ARI-Scores waren in den Gruppen 4a und 4b signifikant unterschiedlich im Vergleich zu den anderen Gruppen (p < 0,05). Gruppe 4a zeigte im Vergleich zu den anderen Gruppen mit Ausnahme der Gruppen 3a und 4b eine signifikant niedrigere Bondingzeit/Zahn (p < 0,001).

Schlussfolgerungen

Die Verkürzung der Aushärtezeit mit dem High-power-LED-Gerät hatte keine signifikante Auswirkung auf die SBS. Beim Komposittyp dagegen war ein Einfluss auf die SBS zu beobachten.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1 Abb. 1
Fig. 2 Abb. 2
Fig. 3 Abb. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Schnebel B, Mateer S, Maganzini AL, Freeman K (2012) Clinical acceptability of two self-etch adhesive resins for the bonding of orthodontic brackets to enamel. J Orthod 39:256–261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ (2006) Comparison of shear bond strength of two self-etch primer/adhesive systems. Angle Orthod 76:123–126

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ (2006) Early shear bond strength of a one-step self-adhesive on orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 76:689–693

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O (2010) Bond strength of orthodontic brackets with new self-adhesive resin cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 137:528–533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Chu CH, Ou KL, de Dong R, Huang HM, Tsai HH, Wang WN (2011) Orthodontic bonding with self-etching primer and self-adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod 33:276–281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Abdelnaby YL, Al-Wakeel Eel S (2010) Effect of early orthodontic force on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 138:208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Faltermeier A, Behr M, Mussig D (2007) A comparative evaluation of bracket bonding with 1‑, 2‑, and 3‑component adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 132(144):e14114–e14115

    Google Scholar 

  8. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortiz AJ, Canteras M (2005) A comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin cement and two orthodontic resin adhesive systems. Angle Orthod 75:109–113

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Scribante A, Sfondrini MF, Fraticelli D, Daina P, Tamagnone A, Gandini P (2013) The influence of no-primer adhesives and anchor pylons bracket bases on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Biomed Res Int 2013:315023

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krishnan S, Pandian S, Rajagopal R (2017) Six-month bracket failure rate with a flowable composite: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial. Dental Press J Orthod 22:69–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Murray SD, Hobson RS (2003) Comparison of in vivo and in vitro shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 123:2–9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Naidu E, Stawarczyk B, Tawakoli PN, Attin R, Attin T, Wiegand A (2013) Shear bond strength of orthodontic resins after caries infiltrant preconditioning. Angle Orthod 83:306–312

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Amato PA, Martins RP, dos Santos Cruz CA, Capella MV, Martins LP (2014) Time reduction of light curing: Influence on conversion degree and microhardness of orthodontic composites. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 146:40–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Oz AA, Oz AZ, Arici S (2016) In-vitro bond strengths and clinical failure rates of metal brackets bonded with different light-emitting diode units and curing times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 149:212–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Ward JD, Wolf BJ, Leite LP, Zhou J (2015) Clinical effect of reducing curing times with high-intensity LED lights. Angle Orthod 85:1064–1069

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Dall‘Igna CM, Marchioro EM, Spohr AM, Mota EG (2011) Effect of curing time on the bond strength of a bracket-bonding system cured with a light-emitting diode or plasma arc light. Eur J Orthod 33:55–59

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lee HM, Kim SC, Kang KH, Chang NY (2016) Comparison of the bonding strengths of second- and third-generation light-emitting diode light-curing units. Korean J Orthod 46:364–371

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Almeida LF, Martins LP, Martins RP (2018) Effects of reducing light-curing time of a high-power LED device on shear bond strength of brackets. J Orofac Orthop 79:352–358

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Reynolds J (1975) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Takaki P, Vieira M, Bommarito S (2014) Maximum bite force analysis in different age groups. Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol 18:272–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A, Lambrechts P, Braem M et al (2005) A critical review of the durability of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 84:118–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ (2004) Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 126:717–724

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W (2001) Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 71:141–148

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Bowen RL, Rodriguez MS (1962) Tensile strength and modulus of elasticity of tooth structure and several restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc 64:378–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Bishara SE (2003) Ceramic brackets: a clinical perspective. World J Orthod 4:61–66

    Google Scholar 

  26. Retief DH (1974) Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil 1:265–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Goracci C, Margvelashvili M, Giovannetti A, Vichi A, Ferrari M (2013) Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a new self-adhering flowable resin composite. Clin Oral Investig 17:609–617

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Reynolds IR (1975) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Turgut MD, Attar N, Korkmaz Y, Gokcelik A (2011) Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites. Dent Mater J 30:66–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, de Luca V, D’Attilio M (2005) A new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an in vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 75:672–677

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Spranley TJ, Winkler M, Dagate J, Oncale D, Strother E (2012) Curing light burns. Gen Dent 60:e210–e214

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

This study was supported by scientific research project of Hacettepe University (project number of 17479).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey

    Ezgi Atik,  Mustafa Kızılırmak,  Cenk Ahmet Akcan &  Tülin Taner

Authors
  1. Ezgi Atik
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mustafa Kızılırmak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cenk Ahmet Akcan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Tülin Taner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tülin Taner.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

E. Atik, M. Kızılırmak, C.A. Akcan and T. Taner declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

All procedures performed were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional ethics committee (Institutional ethics committee with a number of GO 18/749-07) and the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent: Written informed consent was obtained from the participants and their parent/guardian.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Availability of data and materials

The data supporting the findings of this research can be obtained directly from the authors of the study.

Supplementary Information

56_2021_340_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Supplementary Fig. 1 An example for groups 2a and 2b with stereomicroscopic images of teeth and bracket; Supplementary Fig. 2 An example for groups 3a and 3b with stereomicroscopic images of teeth and bracket; Supplementary Fig. 3 An example for groups 4a and 4b with stereomicroscopic images of teeth and bracket

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Atik, E., Kızılırmak, M., Akcan, C.A. et al. No-primer adhesive vs. self-adhesive resin: bonding strength following LED curing. J Orofac Orthop 83, 141–150 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00340-z

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation