Contemporary Clinical Dentistry
   
  Home | About us | Editorial board | Search
Ahead of print | Current Issue | Archives | Advertise
Instructions | Online submission| Contact us | Subscribe |

 

Login  | Users Online: 1949  Print this pageEmail this pageSmall font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size 

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 10  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 600-604

Shear bond strength and bonding properties of orthodontic and nano adhesives: A comparative In-Vitro study


1 Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Buraydah, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

Correspondence Address:
Rabia Bilal
Associate Professor, College of Dentistry, Qassim University, Mullaydah, PO Box. 6700, Buraydah, Qassim 51452
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_842_18

Rights and Permissions

Introduction: Nano restorative composites have been successfully used in restorative dentistry and have high strength and wear resistance. Conventional orthodontic adhesives also possess optimal strength to withstand occlusal forces. This study was done to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic bracket after bonding with nanorestorative composite and orthodontic adhesives. Materials and Methods: This in-vitro experimental study used sixty extracted teeth (divided into two groups). In Group A (n = 30), the brackets were bonded with Filtek Z350 (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA), a nano ceramic restorative composite, and in Group B (n = 30), the brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA), a conventional orthodontic adhesive. The SBS of the orthodontic brackets was measured using a universal testing machine. The modified 0–5-scale adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to assess the amount of adhesive on enamel and bracket surfaces. The surface topography was observed to evaluate enamel damage. Results: The mean (standard deviation [SD]) SBS of 11.07 (1.96) Mega Pascal (MPa) was observed with Filtek Z350, whereas the group bonded with Transbond XT showed the mean (SD) SBS of 12.18 (1.69) MPa. The results showed that Transbond light curing adhesive produced higher SBS than Filtek, but the difference was statistically insignificant (P = 0.088). The comparison of ARI score between the two groups also showed statistically insignificant difference (χ2 = 4.764, df = 5, P = 0.445), and most of the teeth in both groups exhibited score 3 (63%), showing the least damaging mode of bond failure to the enamel bracket interface. Conclusion: There was no significant difference in the mean SBS of Filtek Z and Transbond XT adhesives. Both materials showed optimum bond strength to withstand occlusal forces.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed105    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded27    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal