Effects of direct and indirect bonding techniques on bond strength and microleakage after thermocycling

Fırat Öztürk; Hasan Babacan; Ruhi Nalçacı; Alper Kuştarcı

doi:10.4041/kjod.2009.39.6.393

Journal List > Korean J Orthod > v.39(6) > 1043609

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Öztürk, Babacan, Nalçacı, and Kuştarcı: Effects of direct and indirect bonding techniques on bond strength and microleakage after thermocycling

Original Article

Korean J Orthod 2009;39(6):393-441.

Published online: 21 January 2009

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4041/kjod.2009.39.6.393

Effects of direct and indirect bonding techniques on bond strength and microleakage after thermocycling

Fırat Öztürk, DDS, PhD^a, Hasan Babacan, DDS, MS^b, Ruhi Nalçacı, DDS, PhD^c, Alper Kuştarcı, DDS, PhD^d

^aAssistant Professor, İnönüUniversity, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Malatya, Turkey.

^bAssociate Professor, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Sivas, Turkey.

^cAssistant Professor, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Orthodontics, Sivas, Turkey.

^dAssistant Professor, Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Sivas, Turkey.

Corresponding author: Fırat Öztürk. İnönü University, Dişhekimliği Fakültesi, Ortodonti AD. 44280 Malatya, Turkey. ＋90 5326571572; e-mail, dtfirat@gmail.com.

Received 12 January 20098 July 2009 Accepted 10 July 2009

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objective

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets and microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex bonded with a direct and an indirect bonding technique after thermocycling.

Methods

Fifty non-carious human premolars were divided into two equal groups. In the direct bonding group a light-cured adhesive and a primer (Transbond XT) was used. In the indirect-bonding group, a light-cured adhesive (Transbond XT) and chemical-cured primer (Sondhi Rapid Set) were used. After polymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 24 hours and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). For the microleakage evaluation, 10 teeth from each group were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, and examined under a stereomicroscope. Fifteen teeth from each group were used for SBS testing with the universal testing machine and adhesive remnant index (ARI) evaluation. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher’s exact test.

Results

There were no statistical differences on SBS and microleakage between the two bonding techniques. The indirect bonding group had a significantly lower ARI score. Bracket failures were obtained between enamel-resin interfaces.

Conclusions

The type of bonding technique did not significantly affect the amount of microleakage and SBS.

Keywords: Indirect bonding, Microleakage, Shear bond strength, ARI score

REFERENCES

1.Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955. 34:849–53.

2.Newman GV. Bonding plastic orthodontic attachments to tooth enamel. JNJ Dent Soc. 1964. 35:346–58.

3.Silverman E., Cohen M. Current adhesives for indirect bracket bonding. Am J Orthod. 1974. 65:76–84.

4.Thomas RG. Indirect bonding: simplicity in action. J Clin Orthod. 1979. 13:93–106.

5.Miles PG. Weyant RJ. A comparison of two indirect bonding adhesives. Angle Orthod. 2005. 75:1019–23.

6.Aguirre MJ., King GJ., Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1982. 82:269–76.

7.Hocevar RA., Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988. 94:367–71.

8.Linn BJ., Berzins DW., Dhuru VB., Bradley TG. A comparison of bond strength between direct- and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod. 2006. 76:289–94.

9.Daub J., Berzins DW., Linn BJ., Bradley TG. Bond strength of direct and indirect bonded brackets after thermocycling. Angle Orthod. 2006. 76:295–300.

10.Arhun N., Arman A., Cehreli SB¸Arıkan S., Karabulut E., Gülşahi K. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod. 2006. 76:1028–34.

11.James JW., Miller BH., English JD., Tadlock LP., Buschang PH. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 123:555–61.

12.Ulker M., Uysal T., Ramoglu SI., Ertas H. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets using high-intensity curing lights. Angle Orthod. 2009. 79:144–9.

13.Klocke A., Shi J., Vaziri F., Kahl-Nieke B., Bismayer U. Effect of time on bond strength in indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2004. 74:245–50.

14.Klocke A., Tadic D., Vaziri F., Kahl-Nieke B. Custom base pre-aging in indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2004. 74:106–11.

15.Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999. 115:352–9.

16.International Organization for Standardization Technical Specification Report (ISO/TS 11405: 2003).

17.Artun J., Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984. 85:333–40.

18.Reynolds IR., von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets - a comparative study of adhesives. Br J Orthod. 1976. 3:143–6.

19.Polat O., Karaman AI., Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect-bonding resins. Angle Orthod. 2004. 74:405–9.

20.Klocke A., Shi J., Kahl-Nieke B., Bismayer U. Bond strength with custom base indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod. 2003. 73:176–80.

21.Yi GK., Dunn WJ., Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 124:577–81.

22.Bishara SE., Ajlouni R., Laffoon JF. Effect of thermocycling on the shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate orthodontic adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003. 123:21–4.

23.Sinha PK., Nanda RS., Duncanson MG., Hosier MJ. Bond strengths and remnant adhesive resin on debonding for orthodontic bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1995. 108:302–7.

24.Taylor MJ., Lynch E. Microleakage. J Dent. 1992. 20:3–10.

25.Ramoglu SI., Uysal T., Ulker M., Ertas H. Microleakage under ceramic and metallic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod. 2009. 79:138–43.

26.Gillgrass TJ., Millett DT., Creanor SL., MacKenzie D., Bagg J., Gilmour WH, et al. Fluoride release, microbial inhibition and microleakage pattern of two orthodontic band cements. J Dent. 1999. 27:455–61.

27.Mehl A., Hickel R., Kunzelmann KH. Physical properties and gap formation of light-cured composites with and without ‘softstart-polymerization'. J Dent. 1997. 25:321–30.

28.Ferracane JL., Mitchem JC. Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in class V cavities. Am J Dent. 2003. 16:239–43.

30.Burgess JO., DeGoes M., Walker R., Ripps AH. An evaluation of four light-curing units comparing soft and hard curing. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999. 11:125–32.

31.Oesterle LJ., Newman SM., Shellhart WC. Rapid curing of bonding composite with a xenon plasma arc light. Am J Orthod Dentfacial Orthop. 2001. 119:610–6.

32.Celiberti P., Lussi A. Use of a self etching adhesive on previously etched intact enamel and its effect on sealant microleakage and tag formation. J Dent. 2005. 33:163–71.

33.Kubo S., Yokota H., Sata Y., Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self etching primers after thermal and flexural load cycling. Am J Dent. 2001. 14:163–9.

34.Arıkan S., Arhun N., Arman A., Cehreli SB. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets photopolymerized with LED or conventional light curing units. Angle Orthod. 2006. 76:1035–40.

Fig 1.

Examples of assignments of adhesive remnant index scores (with 10 × magnification). A, B, ARI score of 3 indicated that all the adhesive remained on the tooth; C, D, ARI score of 2 indicated that more than half was left on the tooth.

Fig 2.

Microleakage evaluation between the bracket-adhesive and the adhesive-enamel interfaces. A, A specimen bonded with the direct bonding technique (30 × magnification). The adhesive-tooth interface scores are 0 for both gingival and occlusal sides. For the adhesive-bracket interface, scores are 0 for the occlusal side and 1 for the gingival side; B, a specimen bonded with the indirect bonding technique (30 × magnification). No microleakage found under the bracket.

Table 1.

Comparison of the shear bond strength (SBS) and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) score between direct and indirect bonding groups

		Direct bonding (n = 15)	Indirect bonding (n = 15)	Significance
SBS value (MPa)		12.69±3.53	11.43±3.63	NS
ARI	0	6.7%	40.0%
score	1	20.0%	46.7%	χ² = 12.45
	2	33.3%	13.3%	p = 0.006
	3	40.0%	−

NS, Not significant. The SBS values were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test and ARI scores were evaluated with the Chi-square test (p < 0.05). ARI scores: 0, no adhesive left on the tooth; 1, less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth; 2, more than half of the adhesive left on the tooth; 3, all adhesive left on the tooth.

Table 2.

Comparison of microleakage scores between bracket - adhesive surfaces and adhesive - enamel surfaces from occlusal-gingival sides

		Bracket-adhesive interface			Adhesive-enamel interface
		Direct bonding (n = 10)	Indirect bonding (n = 10)	Sig	Direct bonding (n = 10)	Indirect bonding (n = 10)	Sig
Occlusal	0	80%	60%	NS	90%	70%	NS
scores	1	20%	40%		10%	20%
	2	−	−		−	10%
	3	−	−		−	−
Gingival	0	40%	40%	NS	30%	20%	NS
scores	1	60%	60%		60%	50%
	2	−	−		10%	30%
	3	−	−		−	−

NS, Not significant; microleakage scores: Score 0, no dye penetration between the bracket-adhesive or adhesiveenamel interface; Score 1, dye penetration restricted to 1 mm of the bracket-adhesive or adhesive-enamel interface; Score 2, dye penetration into the inner half (2 mm) of the bracket-adhesive or adhesive-enamel interface; Score 3, dye penetration into 3 mm of the bracket-adhesive or adhesive-enamel interface.

TOOLS

Similar articles