Korean J Orthod.  2011 Dec;41(6):447-453. 10.4041/kjod.2011.41.6.447.

Direct and indirect bonding of wire retainers to bovine enamel using three resin systems: shear bond strength comparisons

• Kwon TY
• Meina H
• Antoszewska J
• Park HS

• KMID: 2273194
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2011.41.6.447

Abstract

OBJECTIVE
We compared the shear bond strength (SBS) of lingual retainers bonded to bovine enamel with three different resins using direct and indirect methods.
METHODS
Both ends of pre-fabricated twisted ligature wires were bonded to bovine enamel surfaces using Light-Core, Tetric N-Flow, or Transbond XT. Phosphoric acid-etched enamel surfaces were primed with One-Step prior to bonding with Light-Core or Tetric N-Flow. Transbond XT primer was used prior to bonding with Transbond XT. After 24 hours in water at 37degrees C, we performed SBS tests on the samples. We also assigned adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores after debonding and predicted the clinical performance of materials and bonding techniques from Weibull analyses.
RESULTS
Direct bonding produced significantly higher SBS values than indirect bonding for all materials. The SBS for Light-Core was significantly higher than that for Tetric N-Flow, and there was no significant difference between the direct bonding SBS of Transbond XT and that of Light-Core. Weibull analysis indicated Light-Core performed better than other indirectly bonded resins.
CONCLUSIONS
When the SBS of a wire retainer is of primary concern, direct bonding methods are superior to indirect bonding methods. Light-Core may perform better than Transbond XT or Tetric N-Flow when bonded indirectly.

Keyword

Lingual bonded retainer; Shear bond strength; Direct and indirect bonding

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Composite Resins
Dental Enamel
Ligation
Resin Cements
Water
Adhesives
Composite Resins
Resin Cements
Water

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Diagram showing ligature wire bonded to bovine enamel surface using resin.

• 

  Fig. 2 Probability of failure versus shear bond strength for all tested groups according to Weibull analysis. LC, Light-Core; TF, Tetric N-Flow; TX, Transbond XT; D, direct bonding method; and ID, indirect bonding method.

Reference

1. Little RM, Riedel RA, Engst ED. Serial extraction of first premolars--postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Angle Orthod. 1990. 60:255–262.

2. Little RM, Riedel RA, Stein A. Mandibular arch length increase during the mixed dentition: postretention evaluation of stability and relapse. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990. 97:393–404.

3. Little RM, Riedel RA, Artun J. An evaluation of changes in mandibular anterior alignment from 10 to 20 years postre-tention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 93:423–428.

4. Littlewood SJ, Millett DT, Doubleday B, Bearn DR, Worthington HV. Retention procedures for stabilising tooth position after treatment with orthodontic braces. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2006. CD002283.

5. Sadowsky C, Schneider BJ, BeGole EA, Tahir E. Long-term stability after orthodontic treatment: nonextraction with prolonged retention. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:243–249.

6. Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod. 1977. 71:440–448.

7. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 108:207–213.

8. Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 111:67–74.

9. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 115:352–359.

10. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod. 1978. 74:62–78.

11. Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Hosier MJ. Bond strengths and remnant adhesive resin on debonding for orthodontic bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 108:302–307.

12. Cadenaro M, Marchesi G, Antoniolli F, Davidson C, De Stefano Dorigo E, Breschi L. Flowability of composites is no guarantee for contraction stress reduction. Dent Mater. 2009. 25:649–654.

13. Albers HF. Tooth-colored restoratives: principles and techniques. 2002. 9th ed. Hamilton, Ontario, Canada: BC Decker;111–125.

14. Uysal T, Ulker M, Baysal A, Usumez S. Different lingual retainer composites and the microleakage between enamel-composite and wire-composite interfaces. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:941–946.

15. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:1105–1109.

16. Toroglu MS, Yaylali S. Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 134:181e1–181e7.

17. Isci D, Sahin Saglam AM, Alkis H, Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T. Effects of fluorosis on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod. 2011. 33:161–166.

18. Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1982. 82:269–276.

19. Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:367–371.

20. Yi GK, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 124:577–581.

21. Martin S, Garcia-Godoy F. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994. 106:615–620.

22. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Shear bond strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 115:24–28.

23. Elekdag-Turk S, Turk T, Isci D, Ozkalayci N. Thermocycling effects on shear bond strength of a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2008. 78:351–356.

24. McCabe JF, Walls AW. The treatment of results for tensile bond strength testing. J Dent. 1986. 14:165–168.

25. Suh BI. Oxygen-inhibited layer in adhesion dentistry. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2004. 16:316–323.

26. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1994. 21:33–43.

27. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998. 114:514–519.