Shear strength of orthodontic bonding agents

1988 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 374-379
Author(s):  
N. Pender ◽  
E. Dresner ◽  
S. Wilson ◽  
R. Vowles
1988 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 374-379 ◽  
Author(s):  
N. Pender ◽  
E. Dresner ◽  
S. Wilson ◽  
R. Vowles

2020 ◽  
Vol 54 (3) ◽  
pp. 233-239
Author(s):  
Ashish Kumar Barik ◽  
Ritu Duggal

Introduction: Fluoride is known to reduce demineralization and enhance remineralization which is desirable around orthodontic brackets. Material and methods: This study was carried out to determine the rate of fluoride release, fluoride content of enamel, and surface alteration of enamel from orthodontic bonding agents. Thirty extracted maxillary first premolars were divided into 2 groups of 15 teeth each. Group A—teeth were bonded with a chemically cured orthodontic bonding agent containing fluoride (Rely-a-Bond, Reliance, Itasca) and group B—teeth were bonded with a light-cured orthodontic bonding agent containing fluoride (Light Bond Reliance, Itasca). All individual sample teeth were used to estimate fluoride release and fluoride content of enamel. The same samples were also used to evaluate enamel surface alterations. The rate of fluoride release from the above 2 orthodontic bonding agents were measured in artificial saliva on day 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 14, 30, 60, and 90. The fluoride content of the enamel was evaluated on day “0” and day “90” of bonding. The samples were also evaluated for the surface changes in enamel using scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: The results showed that (a) chemically cured and light-cured bonding agent showed a dramatic decrease in the concentration of fluoride release from day “1” to day “2,” (b) the concentration of fluoride release kept decreasing from day “1” to day “90” of measurement in both the groups, and (c) SEM of the bracket margins bonded with chemically cured bonding agent and light-cured bonding agent revealed particle depositions of irregular shape and size on day “90.” Conclusion: Light-cured bonding agent (Light Bond) released higher concentration of fluoride as compared to chemically cured bonding agent (Rely-a-Bond). Light-cured bonding agent (Light Bond) showed higher increase in fluoride content of enamel than chemically cured bonding agent (Rely-a-Bond).


2018 ◽  
Vol 48 (3) ◽  
pp. 163 ◽  
Author(s):  
You-Min Kim ◽  
Dong-Hyun Kim ◽  
Chang Weon Song ◽  
Seog-Young Yoon ◽  
Se-Yeon Kim ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-103 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Manfred ◽  
David A. Covell ◽  
Jennifer J. Crowe ◽  
Eser Tufekci ◽  
John C. Mitchell

Abstract Objective: To compare changes in enamel microhardness adjacent to orthodontic brackets after using bonding agents containing various compositions of bioactive glass compared to a traditional resin adhesive following a simulated caries challenge. Materials and Methods: Extracted human third molars (n  =  10 per group) had orthodontic brackets bonded using one of four novel bioactive glass (BAG)-containing orthodontic bonding agents (BAG-Bonds) or commercially available Transbond-XT. The four new adhesives contained BAG in varying percentages incorporated into a traditional resin monomer mixture. Teeth were cycled through low-pH demineralizing and physiologic-pH remineralizing solutions once each day over 14 days. Microhardness was measured on longitudinal sections of the teeth 100, 200, and 300 µm from the bracket edge and beneath the brackets, at depths of 25 to 200 µm from the enamel surface. Normalized hardness values were compared using three-way analysis of variance. Results: Significantly less reduction in enamel microhardness was found with the experimental adhesives at depths of 25 and 50 µm at all distances from the bracket edge. In all groups, there were no significant changes in enamel microhardness past 125-µm depth. Results varied with the different BAG-Bonds, with 81BAG-Bond showing the smallest decrease in enamel microhardness. Conclusions: The BAG-Bonds tested in this study showed a reduction in the amount of superficial enamel softening surrounding orthodontic brackets compared to a traditional bonding agent. The results indicate that clinically, BAG-Bonds may aid in maintaining enamel surface hardness, therefore helping prevent white spot lesions adjacent to orthodontic brackets.


Nanomaterials ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (7) ◽  
pp. 1282 ◽  
Author(s):  
Se Young Park ◽  
Kyung-Hyeon Yoo ◽  
Seog-Young Yoon ◽  
Woo-Sung Son ◽  
Yong-Il Kim

2-methacryloyloxyethyl phosphorylcholine (MPC) is known to have antibacterial and protein-repellent effects, whereas mesoporous bioactive glass nanoparticles (MBN) are known to have remineralisation effects. We evaluated the antibacterial and remineralisation effects of mixing MPC and MBN at various ratios with orthodontic bonding agents. MPC and MBN were mixed in the following weight percentages in CharmFil-Flow (CF): CF, 3% MPC, 5% MPC, 3% MPC + 3% MBN, and 3% MPC + 5% MBN. As the content of MPC and MBN increased, the mechanical properties of the resin decreased. At 5% MPC, the mechanical properties decreased significantly with respect to CF (shear bond strength), gelation of MPC occurred, and no significant difference was observed in terms of protein adsorption compared to the control group. Composition 3% MPC + 5% MBN exhibited the lowest protein adsorption because the proportion of hydrophobic resin composite decreased; CF (91.8 ± 4.8 μg/mL), 3% MPC (73.9 ± 2.6 μg/mL), 3% MPC + 3% MBN (69.4 ± 3.6 μg/mL), and 3% MPC + 5% MBN (55.9 ± 1.6 μg/mL). In experiments against S. mutans and E. coli, addition of MPC and MBN resulted in significant antibacterial effects. In another experiment, the anti-demineralisation effect was improved when MPC was added, and when MBN was additionally added, it resulted in a synergetic effect. When MPC and MBN were added at an appropriate ratio to the orthodontic bonding agents, the protein-repellent, antibacterial, and anti-demineralisation effects were improved. This combination could thus be an alternative way of treating white spot lesions.


2003 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 323-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Corry ◽  
D. T. Millett ◽  
S. L. Creanor ◽  
R. H. Foye ◽  
W. H. Gilmour

2001 ◽  
Vol 120 (4) ◽  
pp. 392-397 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cynthia J. McNeill ◽  
William A. Wiltshire ◽  
Colin Dawes ◽  
Christopher L.B. Lavelle

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document