Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2021) – 132.50
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2022) – 79.69%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2015, vol. 52, nr 4, October-December, p. 440–446

doi: 10.17219/dmp/59421

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Bond Failure Rate of MBT Brackets Bonded with either Self-Etching Primer or Resin Modified Glass Ionomer vs Conventional Method – an in Vivo Study

Odsetek niepowodzeń utrzymania się zamków ortodontycznych MBT za pomocą samowytrawiającego się primeru lub szklano-jonomeru modyfikowanego żywicą w porównaniu do metody tradycyjnej w badaniu in vivo

Mohamad Ghassan Dandachli1,

1 Kalamoon University in Damascus, Damasus, Syria


Background. Self-etching primer and resin modified glass ionomer has been introduced to counter phosphoric etching disadvantages.
Objectives. Evaluation of the bond failure rate of MBT stainless steel brackets bonded with either self etching primer SEP or resin modified glass ionomer RMGI in comparison with conventional methods CM.
Material and Methods. 46 patients with complete permanent dentition were involved in this study. A total of 920 Gemini MBT® brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, four adhesives systems were used: self etching primer SEP (Transbond Plus®, 3M, Unitek, USA), resin-modified glass ionomer RMGI (Fuji Ortho® LC, GC Corp, Japan), light cure LC (Transpond XT®, 3M, Unitek, USA) and chemical cure CC (Unite®, 3M, Unitek, USA). All brackets were bonded by the same clinician. Only first-time bracket failures with tooth number and the remnant adhesive on the enamel were recorded through to 12th month of treatment and observation. Significant differences in bracket failure rate with regard to bonding procedure, patient sex, arch site, and tooth type were determined using the chi-square. The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface.
Results. The bond failure rates were 7%, 15.7%, 7% and 6.5% for the SEP, RMGI, LC, CC respectively. Significant differences in failure rates were found between the groups. The maximum bond failure sites were at the enameladhesive interface in SEP and RMGI groups.
Conclusion. The clinical study showed that Transbond Plus can be used effectively for bonding brackets, whereas using Fuji Ortho LC is not effective in clinical practice.

Key words

self-etching primer, resin modified glass inomer, adhesive remnant index, failure rate

Słowa kluczowe

samowytrawiający się primer, szklano-jonomer modyfikowany żywicą, wskaźnik oceny ilości pozostałości kleju, odsetek niepowodzeń

References (44)

  1. Delport A., Grobler S.R.: Laboratory evaluation of tensile bond strength of resins to enamel. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1988, 93, 133–137.
  2. Rogelio J.S., Hotta Y., Yamamoto K.: Examination of enamel-adhesive interface with focused ion beam and scanning electron microscopy. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2007, 131, 646–650.
  3. Thampson R.E., Way D.C.: Enamel loss due to prophylaxis and multiple bonding and debonding orthodontics attachments. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1981, 79, 282–295.
  4. Kula K., Nash T.D.: Shear-peel bond strength of orthodontic primers in wet conditions. Orthod. Craniofacial. Res. 2003, 6, 96–100.
  5. Summers A., Kao E., Glomre J., Gunel E., Ngan P.: Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: An in vitro and in vivo study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2004,126, 200–206.
  6. Shammaa I., Ngan P., Kim H., Kao E., Gladwin M., Gunel E., Brown C.: Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: An in vitro and in vivo study. Angle. Orthod. 1999, 69, 463–469.
  7. Singh C.: Text book of Orthodontics, Second edition. Jaypee Brothers, 2007.
  8. Aljubouri Y.D., Millet D.T., Gilmour W.H.: Six and 12 month evolution of a self-etching primer versus to stages etch and primer for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial. Eur. J. Orthod. 2004, 26, 565–571.
  9. Dorminey J.C., Dunn W.J., Taloumis L.J.: Shear bond strength of orthodontics brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2003,124, 410–413.
  10. Buyukyllmaz T., Usumez S., Karamen A.: Effect of self-etching primers on shear bond strength – are the reliable? Angle Orthod. 2003, 73, 64–70.
  11. Ghiza M.A., Nganb P., Kaoc E., Martind C., Gunele E.: Effects of sealant and self-etching primer on enamel decalcification. Part II: An in-vivo study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Othop. 2009, 235, 206–213.
  12. Pithon M.M., Antonio Ruellas A.O., Sant’Anna E.F., de Oliveira M.V., Luiz Bernardes A.A.: Shear bond strength of brackets bonded to enamel with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2009, 79, 133–137.
  13. Rajagopal R., Padmanabhan S., Gnanamani J.: A comparison of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of conventional, moisture-Insensitive, and self-etching primers in vitro. Angle Orthod. 2004, 74, 264–268.
  14. Grubisae H.S., Heo G., Raboud D., Glover K.E., Major P.W.: An evaluation and comparison of orthodontic brackets bond strength achieved with self-etching primer. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2004, 126, 213–219.
  15. Millett D.T., Letters S., Roger E., Cummings A., Love J.: Bonded molar tubes, an in vitro evaluation. Angle Orthod. 2001, 71, 380–385.
  16. Cacciafesta V., Sfondrini M.F., Blaga L., Scribante A., Klersy C.: Use of a self-etching primer in comparison with a resin-modified glass ionemer: effect of water and saliva contamination on shear bond strength. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2003, 124, 420–426.
  17. Cacciafesta V., Francesca M.S., Klersy C., Giuseppe S.: Polymerization with micro-xenon light of resin-modified glass ionomer: a shear bond strength study in 15 minutes after bonding. Eur. J. Orthod. 2002, 24, 689–697.
  18. Owens J.R., Miller B.H.: A comparison of shear bond strength of three visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod. 2000, 70, 352–356.
  19. Dunn D.W.: Shear bond strength of an amorphous calcium-phosphate-containing orthodontic resin cement. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2007, 131, 243–247.
  20. Chung C.H., Cuozzo P.T., Mante F.K.: Shear bond strength of resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: An in vitro comparative study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1999, 115, 52–54.
  21. Hotz P., McClean J.W., Sced I., Wilson A.D.: The bonding of glass ionomer cements to metal and tooth substrates. Br. Dent. J. 1977, 142, 41–47.
  22. Cook P.A., Youngson C.C.: An in vitro study of the bond strength of a glass ionomer cement in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Br. J. Orthod. 1988, 15, 247–253.
  23. Paschosa E., Kleinschrodtb T., Tatiana CL., Huthd K.C., Hickele R., Kunzelmannf K., Jansong I.R.: Effect of different bonding agents on prevention of enamel demineralization around orthodontic brackets. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Othop. 2009, 135, 613–620.
  24. Sudjalima T.R., Woodsb M.G., Mantonc D.J., Reynoldsd E.C.: Prevention of demineralization around orthodontic brackets in vitro. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Othop. 2007, 131, 705.e1–705.e9.
  25. Artun J., Bergland S.: Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1984, 85, 333–340.
  26. Hitmi L., Muller C., Mujajic M., Attal J.P.: An 18-month clinical study of bond failures with resin-modified glass-ionomer cement in orthodontic practice. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2001, 120, 406–415
  27. O’Brien K.D., Read M.J., Sandison R.J., Roberts C.T.: A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: An in vivo comparative study. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1989, 95, 348–351.
  28. Mavropoulos A., Karamouzos A., Kolokithas G., Athanasiou A.E.: In vivo evaluation of two new moistureresistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial. J. Orthodont. 2003, 30, 139–147.
  29. Tolendo M., Osorio R., Osorio E., Romeo A., Blance Dela Higuera D.B., Garcia G.F.: Bond strength of orthodontic brackets using different light and self-curing cements. Angle Orthod. 2003, 73, 56–63.
  30. Ozer M., Bayram M., Dincyurek C., Tokalak F.: Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2014, 84, 155–160.
  31. Cal-Neto J.P., Quintãob C.A., Almeidac M.A., Miguel J.A.: Bond failure rates with self-etching primer: A randomized controlled trial. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2009, 135, 782–786.
  32. Murfitt P., Quick A.N., Swain M.V., Herbison G.P.: A randomized clinical trial to investigated bond failure rates using a self-etching primer. Eur. J. Orthod. 2006, 28, 444–449.
  33. Ireland A.J., Knight H., Sherriff M.: An in vivo investigation into bond failure rates with a new self-etching primer system. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2003, 124, 323–326.
  34. Pettemerides A.P., Sherriff M., Ireland A.J.: An in vivo study to compare a plasma arc light a conventional quartz halogen curing light in orthodontic bonding. Eur. J. 2004, 26, 573–579.
  35. Gaworski M., Weinsten M., Borislow A.J., Braitman L.E.: Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1999, 116, 518–521.
  36. Silverman E., Cohen M., Demke R.S., Silverman M.: A new light-cured glass ionomer cement that bonds brackets to teeth without etching in the presence of saliva. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1995, 108, 231–236.
  37. Choo S.C., Ireland A.J., Sherriff M.: An in vivo investigation in to the use of resin-modified glass poly (alkenoate) cements as orthodontic bonding agents. Eur. J. Orthod. 2001, 123, 403–409.
  38. Turk S.E., Cakmak F., Isci D., Turk T.: 12-Month self-legating bracket failure rate with a self-etching primer. Angle Orthod. 2008, 78,1095–1100.
  39. Pandis N., Eliades T.: A comparative in vivo assessment of the long-term failure rate of 2 self-etching primers. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2005, 128, 96–98.
  40. Sunna S., Rock W.P.: Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br. J. Orthodont. 1998, 25, 283–287.
  41. Lovius B.B.J., Pender N., Hewage S.: A clinical trial of a light activated bonding material over an 18 month period. Br. J. Orthodont. 1987,14,11–20.
  42. Whittaker D.K.: Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch. Oral Biol. 1982, 27, 383–392 (cited by Hobson et al., 2002).
  43. Trimpeneers L.M., Dermaut L.R.: A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of two orthodontic bonding systems. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 1996, 110, 547–550.
  44. Hegarty D.G, Macfariane T.: In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial. Orthop. 2002, 121, 496–501.