IADR Abstract Archives

Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Composite Restorative Materials

Bond strength of orthodontic brackets to composite restorative materials

Deregowska - Nosowicz P*1., Czarnecka B.1, Kaczmarek E.2, Paszyñska E.1,Limanowska- Shaw H.1

 

1Department of Biomaterials and Experimental Dentistry, Poznañ University of Medical Sciences, Poznañ, Poland 2Morphometry & Medical Image Processing Laboratory, Department of  Pathology, Poznañ University of Medical Sciences, Poznañ, Poland

Objectives: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets to composite restorative materials using various orthodontic bonding systems.

Methods: 60 metallic orthodontic brackets Elite Opti-Mim (Ortho Organizers)  were used.  Group A consisted of 20 brackets  bonded to tooth-shaped samples of Durafil VS composite (Heraus Kulzer). Group B consisted of 20 brackets bonded  to similar samples with Venus composite (Heraus Kulzer ) and the remaining 20 brackets were bonded to human premolars as controls  ( Group C) . The brackets were bonded to 10 teeth in each group by composite [ Illuminate -Ortho Organizers] adhesiveX or resin modified glass- ionomer [Fuji Ortho LC –GC International] adhesiveY.  The samples were stored in water at 37oC for 24h, then tested for SBS with a  Hounsfield tensometer.  Failure mode was evaluated microscopically. The amount of adhesive remaining  on the tooth surface was evaluated using Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). The results were analysed by means of Multifactor ANOVA and the Newman-Keuls post hoc test.

Results:

Shear bond strengths

Samples

Bonding system

SBS (MPa)

       SD

       ARI

Group A

 

            X

            Y

         4.52

        10.29

      2.39

      2.28

        1.1

        1.1

Group B

 

            X

            Y

         4.61

         8.67

      2.08

      3.20

        2.6

        1.4

Group C

 

            X

            Y

         5.70

       10.38

      2.65

      3.84

        2.5

        1.9

Failure of groups A and B with X and of group C with both X and Y was mainly adhesive.  Failure of groups A and B with Y  was cohesive/adhesive.

Conclusion: RMGIC adhesive provided greater SBS in both the experimental groups and  in the control group, compared to that provided by composite (p<0.05).  The values for RMGIC and composite are satisfactory for clinical situations. Failure mode tended to be adhesive rather than cohesive/adhesive.

 

 


Pan European Federation Meeting
2006 Pan European Federation Meeting (Dublin, Ireland)
Dublin, Ireland
2006
44
Scientific Groups
  • Deregowska-nosowicz, Patricia  ( University of Medical Sciences in Poznan, Poznan, N/A, Poland )
  • Czarnecka, Beata  ( University of Medical Sciences in Poznan, Poznan, N/A, Poland )
  • Kaczmarek, El¿bieta  ( University of Medical Sciences in Poznañ, Poznañ, N/A, Poland )
  • Paszynska, Elzbieta  ( University of Medical Sciences in Poznan, Poznan, N/A, Poland )
  • Shaw, Honorata  ( University of Medical Sciences in Poznañ, Poznañ, N/A, Poland )
    • Poster Session
    A. Dental Materials Poster Session I
    09/13/2006