IADR Abstract Archives
Shear Bond Strength Comparison- Light BondTM Adhesive and GoToTM Adhesive
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic bracket adhesion. We tested two adhesives made by Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc, Light Bond™ (LB) and GoTo™ (GT) on enamel, lithium disilicate, and zirconia.
Methods: Three groups (A, B, C) each consisting of 16 specimens were divided into two subgroups – the first subgroup in each substrate tested LB and the second subgroup tested GT (See Table 1 for Groups). Group A consisted of extracted premolars to test enamel, Group B of lithium disilicate Emax® rods (Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany), and Group C of zirconia, Jensen XT rods (Jensen Dental, USA). Each group was prepared per the manufacturer’s instructions. Assure® PLUS primer (Reliance Orthodontics Products, Inc) was used preceding the application of both adhesives. A standard edgewise universal premolar orthodontic bracket was light cured using a Radii Plus curing light (Southern Dental Industries). Twenty-four hours later, SBS was tested (Instron®5566A, Norwood, MA) with 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed. Independent samples t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare mean bond strengths between the two subgroups for groups A, B, and C.
Results: There were no statistical differences in between the SBS between the LB and GT adhesives in any category. Mean bond strength values, standard deviations and P values are represented in Table 1.
Conclusions: The results suggested no statistically significant difference in SBS between LB and GT on any of the surfaces. Both adhesives required the same etch and preparation process on the indicated bonding surface, and both tested similarly on orthodontic bracket bonding on enamel, lithium disilicate, and zirconia surfaces.
Methods: Three groups (A, B, C) each consisting of 16 specimens were divided into two subgroups – the first subgroup in each substrate tested LB and the second subgroup tested GT (See Table 1 for Groups). Group A consisted of extracted premolars to test enamel, Group B of lithium disilicate Emax® rods (Ivoclar Vivadent, Germany), and Group C of zirconia, Jensen XT rods (Jensen Dental, USA). Each group was prepared per the manufacturer’s instructions. Assure® PLUS primer (Reliance Orthodontics Products, Inc) was used preceding the application of both adhesives. A standard edgewise universal premolar orthodontic bracket was light cured using a Radii Plus curing light (Southern Dental Industries). Twenty-four hours later, SBS was tested (Instron®5566A, Norwood, MA) with 1K load cell and 1mm/min cross-head speed. Independent samples t-test and Wilcoxon rank sum tests were used to compare mean bond strengths between the two subgroups for groups A, B, and C.
Results: There were no statistical differences in between the SBS between the LB and GT adhesives in any category. Mean bond strength values, standard deviations and P values are represented in Table 1.
Conclusions: The results suggested no statistically significant difference in SBS between LB and GT on any of the surfaces. Both adhesives required the same etch and preparation process on the indicated bonding surface, and both tested similarly on orthodontic bracket bonding on enamel, lithium disilicate, and zirconia surfaces.
IMAGES
3175082_File000000.jpg
3175082_File000000.jpg