Korean J Orthod.  2012 Feb;42(1):32-38.

Evaluation of different enamel conditioning techniques for orthodontic bonding

Affiliations
  • 1Department of Orthodontics, Dental Faculty, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey. cturkoz@hotmail.com

Abstract


OBJECTIVE
The aim of this study was to compare the effects of different enamel conditioning techniques for bracket bonding.
METHODS
Ninety-one human premolars were randomly divided in six groups of 15 specimens each. The enamel surfaces of the teeth were etched with 35% orthophosphoric acid in Group 1, with a self-etching primer in Group 2, sandblasted in Group 3, sandblasted and etched with 35% orthophosphoric acid in Group 4, conditioned by Er:YAG laser in Group 5 and conditioned by Er:YAG laser and etched with 35% phosphoric acid gel respectively in Group 6. After enamel conditioning procedures, brackets were bonded and shear bonding test was performed. After debonding, adhesive remnant index scores were calculated for all groups. One tooth from each group were inspected by scanning electron microscope for evaluating the enamel surface characteristics.
RESULTS
The laser and acid etched group showed the highest mean shear bond strength (SBS) value (13.61 +/- 1.14 MPa) while sandblasted group yielded the lowest value (3.12 +/- 0.61 MPa).
CONCLUSIONS
Although the SBS values were higher, the teeth in laser conditioned groups were highly damaged. Therefore, acid etching and self-etching techniques were found to be safer for orthodontic bracket bonding. Sandblasting method was found to generate inadequate bonding strength.

Keyword

Bonding; Adhesive; Resin

MeSH Terms

Adhesives
Bicuspid
Dental Enamel
Electrons
Humans
Orthodontic Brackets
Phosphoric Acids
Tooth
Adhesives
Phosphoric Acids

Figure

  • Figure 1 Photomicrograph of the acid-treated enamel surface after debonding. The entire enamel surface is coated with resin.

  • Figure 2 Photomicrograph of the enamel surface treated with self-etching primer after debonding. Spurs (arrowhead) can be observed on the tracings of enamel rods.

  • Figure 3 Photomicrograph of the sandblast-treated enamel surface after debonding. Broken enamel surface (circles), sand particles (arrowheads), and a few remnant resins (brackets) can be observed.

  • Figure 4 Photomicrograph of the sandblast-treated and acid-etched enamel surface after debonding. The entire surface is coated with resin.

  • Figure 5 Photomicrograph of the Er:YAG laser-treated enamel surface after debonding. Ablation on the enamel surface can be observed.

  • Figure 6 Photomicrograph of the enamel surface treated with Er:YAG laser followed by acid etching after debonding. Remnant adhesive sites (A), rough enamel rods (B), and fractured enamel (between arrows) can be observed.


Reference

1. Urabe H, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. Combinations of etchants, composite resins, and bracket systems: an important choice in orthodontic bonding procedures. Angle Orthod. 1999. 69:267–275.
2. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Recent advances in bonding to gold, amalgam, and porcelain. J Clin Orthod. 1993. 27:661–675.
3. Faltermeier A, Behr M. Effect of bracket base conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 135:12.e1–12.e5.
Article
4. Chung K, Hsu B, Berry T, Hsieh T. Effect of sandblasting on the bond strength of the bondable molar tube bracket. J Oral Rehabil. 2001. 28:418–424.
Article
5. Berk N, Basaran G, Özer T. Comparison of sandblasting, laser irradiation, and conventional acid etching for orthodontic bonding of molar tubes. Eur J Orthod. 2008. 30:183–189.
Article
6. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Akça E. The effect of enamel air abrasion on the retention of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000. 117:15–19.
Article
7. von Fraunhofer JA, Allen DJ, Orbell GM. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding. Angle Orthod. 1993. 63:73–76.
8. Klein AL, Rodrigues LK, Eduardo CP, Nobre dos, Cury JA. Caries inhibition around composite restorations by pulsed carbon dioxide laser application. Eur J Oral Sci. 2005. 113:239–244.
Article
9. Üsümez S, Orhan M, Üsümez A. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding with an Er,Cr:YSGG hydrokinetic laser system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002. 122:649–656.
Article
10. Basaran G, Ozer T, Berk N, Hamamci O. Etching enamel for orthodontics with an erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser system. Angle Orthod. 2007. 77:117–123.
11. Basaran G, Hamamci N, Akkurt A. Shear bond strength of bonding to enamel with different laser irradiation distances. Lasers Med Sci. 2011. 26:149–156.
Article
12. Hamamci N, Akkurt A, Basaran G. In vitro evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic brackets using two different laser etching, self etching and acid etching methods. Lasers Med Sci. 2010. 25:811–816.
Article
13. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:333–340.
Article
14. Lehman R, Davidson CL. Loss of surface enamel after acid etching procedures and its relation to fluoride content. Am J Orthod. 1981. 80:73–82.
Article
15. Shey Z, Brandt S. Enamel loss due to acid treatment for bonding. J Clin Orthod. 1982. 16:338–340.
16. Yamada R, Hayakawa T, Kasai K. Effect of using selfetching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2002. 72:558–564.
17. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975. 2:171–178.
Article
18. Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Comparison of shear bond strength and surface structure between conventional acid etching and air-abrasion of human enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 112:502–506.
Article
19. Reisner KR, Levitt HL, Mante F. Enamel preparation for orthodontic bonding: a comparison between the use of a sandblaster and current techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997. 111:366–373.
Article
20. Hossain M, Nakamura Y, Tamaki Y, Yamada Y, Murakami Y, Matsumoto K. Atomic analysis and knoop hardness measurement of the cavity floor prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in vitro. J Oral Rehabil. 2003. 30:515–521.
Article
21. Walsh LJ, Abood D, Brockhurst PJ. Bonding of resin composite to carbon dioxide laser-modified human enamel. Dent Mater. 1994. 10:162–166.
Article
22. Visuri SR, Gilbert JL, Wright DD, Wigdor HA, Walsh JT Jr. Shear strength of composite bonded to Er:YAG laser-prepared dentin. J Dent Res. 1996. 75:599–605.
Article
23. Ozer T, Başaran G, Berk N. Laser etching of enamel for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. 134:193–197.
Article
24. Roberts-Harry DP. Laser etching of teeth for orthodontic bracket placement: a preliminary clinical study. Lasers Surg Med. 1992. 12:467–470.
Article
25. Corpas-Pastor L, Villalba Moreno J, de Dios Lopez-Gonzalez Garrido J, Pedraza Muriel V, Moore K, Elias A. Comparing the tensile strength of brackets adhered to laser-etched enamel vs. acid-etched enamel. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997. 128:732–737.
Article
26. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self-etching adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2009. 136:425–430.
Article
27. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001. 119:621–624.
Article
28. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004. 126:717–724.
Article
Full Text Links
  • KJOD
Actions
Cited
CITED
export Copy
Close
Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
Similar articles
Copyright © 2024 by Korean Association of Medical Journal Editors. All rights reserved.     E-mail: koreamed@kamje.or.kr