Journal Article

Moisture‐insensitive adhesives: reactivity with water and bond strength to wet and saliva‐contaminated enamel

T. Eliades, E. Katsavrias and G. Eliades

in The European Journal of Orthodontics

Published on behalf of European Orthodontics Society

Volume 24, issue 1, pages 35-42
Published in print February 2002 | ISSN: 0141-5387
Published online February 2002 | e-ISSN: 1460-2210 | DOI:
Moisture‐insensitive adhesives: reactivity with water and bond strength to wet and saliva‐contaminated enamel

More Like This

Show all results sharing this subject:

  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics


Show Summary Details


The purpose of this study was to investigate the reactivity with water of a moisture‐insensitive orthodontic primer (Transbond MIP), in conjunction with a no‐mix orthodontic adhesive (Unite), and a moisture‐insensitive adhesive (Smartbond), and to assess their bond strength to wet and saliva‐contaminated enamel relative to the conventional application of the no‐mix adhesive. The reactivity of the moisture‐insensitive products with water was investigated by micro‐multiple internal reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy (micro‐MIR FTIR). Sixty premolars were divided into two groups of 30 teeth each and, on the buccal enamel surfaces, a standardized volume (0.1 ml) of water or fresh whole saliva was applied. Standard edgewise stainless steel brackets were then bonded to enamel surfaces as follows: (a) Unite, (b) Unite with the Transbond MIP, and (c) Smartbond. The brackets were debonded under shear force at a speed of 2 mm/min and the debonded enamel surfaces were subjected to fractographic analysis. The statistical analysis of the bond strength values was performed by two‐way ANOVA with condition (water, saliva) and adhesive type serving as discriminating variables (n = 10, α = 0.05). The results of the fractographic analysis were evaluated by χ2 test (α = 0.05).

FTIR analysis showed that only Smartbond set in the presence of water. Application of water in Transbond MIP increased the extent of carboxyl ionization without inducing any setting reaction. Transbond MIP did not improve bond strength values when combined with the no‐mix adhesive. Most adhesive‐enamel condition combinations showed a trend to present lower bond strength in the presence of saliva; however, this was not confirmed statistically. Fractography of enamel and bracket base surfaces showed that Unite + Transbond MIP resulted in the most adhesive fractures (leaving no resin on enamel surface), whereas Smartbond presented the highest frequency of cohesive fractures (adhesive left on bracket and enamel surfaces).

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.