Search

Aim: This study examined the bond strength associated with Denteshield® Primer as a replacement for a conventional, non-antimicrobial, orthodontic primer. Materials/methods: Sixty human premolar teeth were divided into three groups (n=20). Each group was assigned to receive either Denteshield®, Pro Seal® or Transbond XT TM primer. Light-cured Transbond XTTM adhesive resin was utilised to bond a bracket to each sample tooth following the application of the assigned primer. Ten samples from each group were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The remaining 10 samples from each group underwent bracket debonding using a debonding plier. Applying an adhesive remnant index, each sample was scored under a microscope at 2.5× magnification. The data were analysed using One-way ANOVA, the Tukey post hoc test and the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: The mean shear bond strength (MPa) of the three groups was: Denteshield® (33.18 ± 13.56), Pro Seal® (23.68 ± 12.04) and Transbond XTTM primer (26.19 ± 9.44). There was no significant difference in the shear bond strength across all three groups (p = 0.19). The adhesive remnant index results also showed no significant differences between the three groups (p = 0.278). Conclusion: Based on the shear bond strengths obtained in this study and the previously reported values necessary for clinical use, all three primers appear adequate for clinical use. (Aust Orthod J 2022; 39: 49 - 54. DOI: 10.2478/aoj-2023-0009)

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded to highly translucent zirconia surfaces following the use of two different primers. Materials and methods: Results: There was no significant overall difference across the six experimental groups regarding shear bond strength. The use of the two tested zirconia primers resulted in comparable and clinically acceptable shear bond strengths. Conclusions: Both tested zirconia primers were associated with adequate bond strength when bonding a ceramic orthodontic bracket to the three highly translucent zirconia substrates.

Aim The objective of the present study was to determine which of six bonding protocols yielded a clinically acceptable shear bond strength (SBS) of metal orthodontic brackets to CAD/CAM lithium disilicate porcelain restorations. A secondary aim was to determine which bonding protocol produced the least surface damage at debond. Methods Sixty lithium disilicate samples were fabricated to replicate the facial surface of a mandibular first molar using a CEREC CAD/CAM machine. The samples were split into six test groups, each of which received different mechanical/chemical pretreatment protocols to roughen the porcelain surface prior to bonding a molar orthodontic attachment. Shear bond strength testing was conducted using an Instron machine. The mean, maximum, minimal, and standard deviation SBS values for each sample group including an enamel control were calculated. A t-test was used to evaluate the statistical significance between the groups. Results No significant differences were found in SBS values, with the exception of surface roughening with a green stone prior to HFA and silane treatment. This protocol yielded slightly higher bond strength which was statistically significant. Conclusion Chemical treatment alone with HFA/silane yielded SBS values within an acceptable clinical range to withstand forces applied by orthodontic treatment and potentially eliminates the need to mechanically roughen the ceramic surface.