Journal Article

Shear bond strengths of ceramic brackets bonded with different light-cured glass ionomer cements: an <i>in vitro</i> study

V Cacciafesta, U Süssenberger, P-G Jost-Brinkmann and RR Miethke

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 20, issue 2, pages 177-187
Published in print April 1998 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online April 1998 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ejo/20.2.177
Shear bond strengths of ceramic brackets bonded with different light-cured glass ionomer cements: an in vitro study

Show Summary Details

Preview

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strengths of four light-cured glass ionomer cements used for direct bonding of ceramic brackets, and to compare the results with a two-paste chemically-cured composite resin. Two commercially available polycrystalline ceramic brackets, with either chemically or mechanically retentive bracket bases, were evaluated. The brackets were bonded to 100 freshly extracted bovine incisors, and, after storage in tap water at room temperature for 24 hours, they were subsequently tested in a shear mode using a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded.

With the mechanically retentive base, Fuji Ortho LC produced the highest bond strength (18.50 MPa), which was not significantly different from the values achieved with Concise (1 4.88 MPa) (P < 0. 1) and Photac Bond (1 3.86 MPa) (P = 0. 1). The lowest bond strength was provided by Iocomp A20 (5.23 MPa).

With the chemically retentive base, the highest bond strength was measured with Concise (29.27 MPa), which was significantly (P < 0.01) higher than the values for Photac Bond (16.27 MPa) and Fuji Ortho LC (13.48 MPa). Again Iocomp A20 produced the lowest bond strength (3.21 Mpa).

Three cements (Dyract Ortho, Iocomp A20 and Fuji Ortho LC) provided higher shear bond strengths with the mechanical retention system, whereas Concise and Photac Bond gave higher strengths with the silane-treated bracket bases. However, the strengths were statistically significantly different only for Iocomp A20 (P = 0.001) and Concise (P = 0.001).

With the mechanically retentive base, Dyract Ortho and Iocomp A20 failed at the enamel adhesive interface, whereas Photac Bond and Concise debonded at the bracket-adhesive interface. Fuji Ortho LC failed at both, the bracket-adhesive (40 per cent) and the adhesive-enamel (60 per cent) interface.

With the chemically retentive base, all the adhesives failed at the enamel-adhesive interface. Only one bracket fracture occurred in this study, and no enamel damage was detected.

Journal Article.  0 words. 

Subjects: Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics

Full text: subscription required

How to subscribe Recommend to my Librarian

Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Please, subscribe or login to access all content.