Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of using different component combinations for orthodontic bracket bonding with self-etch primers

Auswirkung der Verwendung verschiedener Komponentenkombinationen beim Bonding kieferorthopädischer Brackets mit selbstätzenden Primern

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

Abstract

Purpose

To evaluate bonding quality for orthodontic bracket bonding with different component combinations of self-etch primers in vitro.

Methods

Metallic brackets were bonded to bovine lower incisors and assigned to groups. Group 1: comparison of self-etch (Transbond™ Plus, 3M™ Unitek, Neuss, Germany, n = 30; BrackFix® primer SE, VOCO®, Cuxhaven, Germany, n = 20) and etch-and-rinse bonding systems (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20); group 2: comparison of different self-etch primer (Transbond™ Plus; BrackFix® primer SE) and adhesive (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20) product combinations; group 3: testing cyclic fatigue bond strength of self-etch bonding systems (Transbond™ Plus, n = 20; BrackFix® primer SE, n = 20). All teeth were tested for shear bond strength according to the DIN-13990 standard, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and enamel fractures were determined microscopically (10 × magnification).

Results

The mean shear bond strength of the self-etch (Transbond™ Plus: 16.38 ± 3.68 MPa; BrackFix® primer SE: 16.24 ± 1.73 MPa) and etch-and-rinse bonding systems (Transbond™ XT: 18.45 ± 2.56 MPa; BrackFix®: 17 ± 5.2 MPa) were of a clinically adequate order of magnitude (≥ 6–10 MPa) and were not statistically different. The component combination BrackFix® primer SE/Transbond™ XT adhesive led to a significantly lower shear bond strength (11.99 ± 3.68 MPa). There were no significant differences between static and fatigue shear bond strengths of self-etch bonding systems. Mean ARI scores mostly ranged between 4 and 5. The combination of the self-etch primer Transbond™ Plus with the BrackFix® adhesive led to a significantly increased enamel fracture rate.

Conclusions

Based on the present findings bond strength of self-etch primers was equal to etch-and-rinse primers for bracket bonding. Combining different self-etch bonding systems might alter the clinical performance.

Zusammenfassung

Zielsetzung

In-vitro-Evaluation, ob die Kombination verschiedener selbstätzender Bondingsysteme die Verbundqualität bei der Bracketbefestigung beeinflusst.

Methode

Metallbrackets wurden auf bovinen Zähnen befestigt und in Gruppen aufgeteilt. Gruppe 1: Vergleich selbstätzender Primer-Adhäsiv-Gemische (Transbond™ Plus, 3M™ Unitek, Neuss, Deutschland; n = 30; BrackFix® primer SE, VOCO®, Cuxhaven, Deutschland, n = 20) mit konventionellen Säure-Ätz-Techniken (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20); Gruppe 2: Kombination selbstätzender Primer (Transbond™ Plus; BrackFix® primer SE) mit Adhäsiven anderer Hersteller (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20); Gruppe 3: Untersuchung selbstätzender Bondingsysteme (Transbond™ Plus, n = 20; BrackFix® primer SE, n = 20) unter zyklischer Dauerbelastung. Alle Proben wurden hinsichtlich der Scherhaftfestigkeit nach DIN-13990 geprüft sowie der ARI („adhesive remnant index“) und Schmelzausrisse mikroskopisch bestimmt (10-fache Vergrößerung).

Ergebnisse

Die Verbundhaftfestigkeiten selbstätzender (Transbond™ Plus: 16,38 ± 3,68 MPa; BrackFix® primer SE: 16,24 ± 1,73 MPa) und konventioneller Bondingsysteme (Transbond™ XT: 18,45 ± 2,56 MPa; BrackFix®: 17 ± 5,2 MPa) lagen in einem klinisch akzeptablen Bereich (≥6–10 MPa) und zeigten keine statistisch signifikanten Unterschiede. Die Kombination von Primern und Adhäsiven unterschiedlicher Hersteller führte in der Kombination BrackFix® primer SE/Transbond™ XT Adhäsiv (11,99 ± 3,68 MPa) zu einer signifikant verringerten Verbundqualität. Es lagen keine Unterschiede zwischen statischer und zyklischer Verbundhaftfestigkeit selbstätzender Bondingsysteme vor. Die durchschnittlichen ARI-Scores lagen überwiegend zwischen 4 and 5. Die Kombination von Transbond™ Plus Primer/BrackFix® Adhäsiv führte zu einer signifikant höheren Schmelzfrakturrate.

Schlussfolgerung

Die Verbundqualität selbstätzender und konventioneller Bondingsysteme zeigte sich gleichwertig. Die Kombination unterschiedlicher Primer- und Adhäsivkomponenten kann die klinische Performance verändern.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

We’re sorry, something doesn't seem to be working properly.

Please try refreshing the page. If that doesn't work, please contact support so we can address the problem.

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

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ARI:

Adhesive remnant index

References

  1. Diedrich P (1981) Die Verbundfestigkeit verschiedener orthodontischer Adhäsive zum konditionierten Schmelz und zur Bracketbasis. Fortschr Kieferorthop 42:305–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Reynolds I (1974) A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 2:171–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Stasinopoulos D, Papageorgiou SN, Kirsch F et al (2018) Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: a retrospective cohort study. Angle Orthod 88:338–347. https://doi.org/10.2319/081817-559.1

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Linklater RA, Gordon PH (2001) An ex vivo study to investigate bond strengths of different tooth types. J Orthod 28:59–65. https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/28.1.59

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ (2000) The effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 70:435–441. https://doi.org/10.1067/mod.2002.123042

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Edwards D, Berry JJ (1987) The efficiency of simulation-based multiple comparisons. Biometrics 43:913–928

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Buonocore M (1955) A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 34:849–853

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Mandall N, Millett D, Mattick C et al (2003) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2:CD2282

    Google Scholar 

  9. Sunna S, Rock W (1998) Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod 25:283–287

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Gottlieb E, Retief D, Jamison H (1982) An optimal concentration of phosphoric acid as an etching agent. Part I: tensile bond strength studies. J Prosthet Dent 48:48–51

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Ohsawa T (1972) Studies on solubility and adhesion of the enamel in pre-treatment for caries preventive sealing. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 13:65–82

    Google Scholar 

  12. Carstensen W (1992) The effects of different phosphoric acid concentrations on surface enamel. Angle Orthod 62:51–58

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Wang W, Lu T (1991) Bond strength with various etching times on young permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 100:72–79

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Sadowsky P, Retief D, Cox P et al (1990) Effects of etchant concentration and duration on the retention of orthodontic brackets: an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 98:417–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81650-6

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Kinch A, Taylor H, Warltier R et al (1989) A clinical study of amount of adhesive remaining on enamel after debonding, comparing etch times of 15 and 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 95:415–421. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90303-x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Carstensen W (1986) Clinical results after direct bonding of brackets using shorter etching times. Am J Orthod 89:70–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/0002-9416(86)90114-4

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Hu H, Li C, Chen J et al (2013) Enamel etching for bonding fixed orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 11:CD5516. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD005516.pub2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Fleming P, Johal A, Pandis N (2012) Self-etch primers and conventional acid-etch technique for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 142:83–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2012.02.023

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Giannini M, Makishi P, Ayres A et al (2015) Self-etch adhesive systems: a literature review. Braz Dent J 26:3–10. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6440201302442

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Wang Y, Spencer P (2004) Physiochemical interactions at the interfaces between self-etch adhesive systems and dentine. J Dent 32:118–132

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Van Landuyt K, Snauwaert J, De Munck J et al (2007) Systematic review of the chemical composition of contemporary dental adhesives. Biomaterials 28:3757–3785

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R et al (2004) Comparative study on adhesive performance offunctional monomers. J Dent Res 83:454–458

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Knaup I, Böddeker A, Tempel K et al (2020) Analysing the potential of hydrophilic adhesive systems to optimise orthodontic bracket rebonding. Head Face Med 16:20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00233-3

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  24. Knaup T, Korbmacher-Steiner H, Braun A et al (2020) Effects of 445-nm diode laser-assisted debonding of metallic brackets on shear bond strength and enamel surface morphology. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg 38:160–166. https://doi.org/10.1089/photob.2019.4704

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Daratsianos N, Schütz B, Reimann S et al (2019) The influence of enamel sandblasting on the shear bond strength and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex tested in vitro by the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard. Clin Oral Investig 23:2975–2985. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2692-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Dixon W, Mood A (1948) A method for obtaining and analyzing sensitivity data. J Am Stat Assoc 43:109–126

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Deutsches Institut für Normung e. V. (2017) DIN 13990:2017-04, dentistry—testmethods for shear bond strength of adhesives for orthodontic attachments

    Google Scholar 

  28. Bishara S, Trulove T (1990) Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part II. Findings and clinical implications. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 98:263–273

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Ibrahim A, Al-Hasani N, Thompson V, Deb S (2020) In vitro bond strengths post thermal and fatigue load cycling of sapphire brackets bonded with self-etch primer and evaluation of enamel damage. J Clin Exp Dent 12:e22–e30. https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.56444

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  30. Imani M, Aghajani F, Momeni N, Akhoundi M (2018) Effect of cyclic loading on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study. J Dent 15:351–357

    Google Scholar 

  31. Schauseil M, Blöcher S, Hellak A et al (2016) Shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new premixed self-etching with a reference total-etch adhesive. Head Face Med 12:19. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-016-0117-x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  32. Farhadian N, Miresmaeili A, Zandi V (2019) Shear bond strength of brackets bonded with self-etching primers compared to conventional acid-etch technique: a randomized clinical trial. Front Dent 16:248–255. https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v16i4.2083

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  33. Kim YK, Park H‑S, Kim K‑H, Kwon T‑Y (2015) Effect of adhesive resin flexibility on enamel fracture during metal bracket debonding: an ex vivo study. Eur J Orthod 37:550–555. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cju086

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Daratsianos N, Musabegovic E, Reimann S et al (2013) The influence of cyclic shear fatigue on the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex: an in vitro study. Dent Mater 29:506–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2013.01.003

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ (2008) The influence of dynamic fatigue loading on the separate components of the bracket-cement-enamel system. Am J Dent 21:239–243

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. BenGassem A, Georgiou G, Jones S (2013) Initial and fatigue bond strengths of nanofilled and conventional composite bonding adhesives. J Orthod 40:137–144. https://doi.org/10.1179/1465313312Y.0000000034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Hajrassie M, Khier S (2007) In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 131:384–390

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Eliades T, Bourauel C (2005) Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 127:403–412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Otto Schott Institute of Materials Research, University of Jena, Germany and the Medical Faculties of Jena and Aachen, Germany for scientific support.

Funding

The study was funded by the companies VOCO® GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany, which was involved in financial and material support, DENTAURUM GmbH & Co. KG, Ispringen, Germany and 3M Unitek GmbH, Neuss, Germany, which were involved in material support. None of the mentioned companies were involved in either data collection, analysis and interpretation or writing of the article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 30, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Isabel Knaup DDS, Eva Weber DDS, Antonia Böddeker DDS, Katrin Tempel DDS, Jenny Rosa Bartz DDS, Asisa Bastian PhD & Michael Wolf DDS, PhD

  2. Department of Medical Statistics, RWTH Aachen University Hospital, Pauwelsstr. 19, 52074, Aachen, Germany

    Marcia Viviane Rückbeil MSc

  3. Department of Orthodontics, Jena University Hospital, An der alten Post 4, 07743, Jena, Germany

    Yvonne Wagner DDS, PhD

Authors
  1. Isabel Knaup DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Eva Weber DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Antonia Böddeker DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Katrin Tempel DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marcia Viviane Rückbeil MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Jenny Rosa Bartz DDS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Asisa Bastian PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Yvonne Wagner DDS, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Michael Wolf DDS, PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Isabel Knaup DDS.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

I. Knaup, E. Weber, A. Böddeker, K. Tempel, M.V. Rückbeil, J.R. Bartz, A. Bastian, Y. Wagner and M. Wolf declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical standards

This article does not report on any studies with human participants or animals that were performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

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

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knaup, I., Weber, E., Böddeker, A. et al. Effect of using different component combinations for orthodontic bracket bonding with self-etch primers. J Orofac Orthop 84 (Suppl 2), 84–92 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00356-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-021-00356-5

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation