Effect of Universal Adhesive and Different Surface Pretreatments on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Amalgam Restorations: A Comparative Experimental Study
Journal of Dental School,
Vol. 39 No. 1 (2021),
26 January 2022
,
Page 23-27
https://doi.org/10.22037/jds.v39i1.36172
Abstract
Objectives Many adult patients requiring orthodontic treatment have posterior restorations. Bracket bonding to dental restorations is a clinical challenge. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of universal adhesive with the conventional method on shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to amalgam restorations.
Methods Ninety cavities were filled with admixed amalgam and divided into six groups (n=15) according to the surface pretreatment (no mechanical preparation, diamond bur preparation, and sandblasting) and type of bonding agent (alloy primer plus Transbond XT or universal adhesive). Mandibular central incisor brackets were bonded to the restoration surfaces. The primary outcome was the bond strength in megapascals (MPa) which was compared by two-way ANOVA. The mode of failure was the secondary outcome determined by determination of the adhesive remnant index (ARI). The Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests were used to compare the ARI scores among the groups.
Results Among the groups with the conventional method, the sandblasted subgroup showed the highest SBS (P<0.05). The three subgroups of universal adhesive were not significantly different in terms of SBS (P=1). Overall, the highest SBS was noted in the sandblasted/conventional adhesive group.
Conclusion The results demonstrated that sandblasting plus alloy primer and Transbond XT bonding agent could be recommended for bracket bonding to amalgam restorations. Further studies using other bonding agents are recommended
- Dental Restoration, Permanent
- Orthodontic Brackets
- Dental Bonding
- Shear Strength
How to Cite
References
Nazir M, Walsh T, Mandall NA, Matthew S, Fox D. Banding versus bonding of first permanent molars: a multi-centre randomized controlled trial. J Orthod . 2011;38(2):81-9.
Abu-Alhaija E, Jaradat M, Alwahadni A. An Ex-vivo Shear and tensile bond strengths of orthodontic molar tubes bonded using different techniques. J Clin Exp Dent. 2017;9(3):e448.
McLaughlin JO, Coulter WA, Coffey A, Burden DJ. The incidence of bacteremia after orthodontic banding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop . 1996;109(6):639-44.
Banks P, Macfarlane TV. Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod. 2007;34(2):128-36; discussion 11-2.
Shenoy A. Is it the end of the road for dental amalgam? A critical review. J Conserv Dent. 2008;11(3):99-107.
Wongsamut W, Satrawaha S, Wayakanon K. Surface modification for bonding between amalgam and orthodontic brackets. J Orthod Sci. 2017;6(4):129-35.
Marshall SJ, Marshall GW, Jr. Dental amalgam: the materials. Adv Dent Res. 1992;6:94-9.
Eley BM, Cox SW. Mercury from dental amalgam fillings in patients. Br Dent J. 1987;163(7):221-6.
Oliveira MT, Constantino HV, Molina GO, Milioli E, Ghizoni JS, Pereira JR. Evaluation of mercury contamination in patients and water during amalgam removal. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2014;15(2):165-8.
Skilton JW, Tyas MJ, Woods MG. Effects of surface treatment on orthodontic bonding to amalgam. Aust Orthod J. 2006;22(1):59-66.
Gross MW, Foley TF, Mamandras AH. Direct bonding to Adlloy-treated amalgam. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997;112(3):252-8.
Sperber RL, Watson PA, Rossouw PE, Sectakof PA. Adhesion of bonded orthodontic attachments to dental amalgam: In vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop.1999;116(5):506-13.
Oskoee PA, Kachoei M, Rikhtegaran S, Fathalizadeh F, Navimipour EJ. Effect of surface treatment with sandblasting and Er,Cr:YSGG laser on bonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets to silver amalgam. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2012;17(2):e292-6.
Marchesi G, Frassetto A, Mazzoni A, Apolonio F, Diolosa M, Cadenaro M, et al. Adhesive performance of a multi-mode adhesive system: 1-year in vitro study. J Dent. 2014;42(5):603-12.
Balkaya H, Demirbuga S, Çakir NN, Karadas M, Zorba YO. Micro-shear bond strength of universal adhesives used for amalgam repair with or without Alloy Primer. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21(3):274-9.
Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(4):333-40.
Hattan MA, Pani SC, Alomari M. Composite bonding to stainless steel crowns using a new universal bonding and single-bottle systems. Int J Dent. 2013;2013:607405.
Tahmasbi S, Badiee M, Modarresi M. Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Composite Restorations Using Universal Adhesive. J Dent (Shiraz). 2019; 20(2): 75–82.
Tahmasbi S, Shiri A, Badiee M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain surface using universal adhesive compared to conventional method. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2020; 17(1): 19–24.
Germec D, Cakan U, Ozdemir FI, Arun T, Cakan M. Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to amalgam with different intermediate resins and adhesives. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31(2):207-12.
Atta MO, Smith BG, Brown D. Bond strengths of three chemical adhesive cements adhered to a nickel-chromium alloy for direct bonded retainers. J Prosthet Dent. 1990;63(2):137-43.
Takeya M, Murakami N, Unemori M, Motomura M, Yamamoto Y. Surface preparation of the dental Au-Ag-Pd alloy for improving adhesion to 4-META/MMA-TBB resin cement. Dent Mater J.1988;7(1):94-110.
Yetkiner E, Özcan M. Adhesive strength of metal brackets on existing composite, amalgam and restoration-enamel complex following air-abrasion protocols. Int J Adhes Adhes. 2014;54:200-5.
Alavi S, Shirani F, Zarei Z, Raji SAH. Effect of different surface treatment with panaviaV5 on shear bond strength of metal brackets to silver amalgam. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2021;18:9.
Buyukyilmaz T, Zachrisson BU. Improved orthodontic bonding to silver amalgam. Part 2. Lathe-cut, admixed, and spherical amalgams with different intermediate resins. Angle Orthod. 1998;68(4):337-44.
Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, Nakayama Y, Okazaki M, Shintani H, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers. J Dent Res. 2004;83(6):454-8.
- Abstract Viewed: 150 times
- PDF Downloaded: 60 times