Effects of moisture conditions of dental enamel surface on bond strength of brackets bonded with moisture-insensitive primer adhesive system

• Published in: Odontology 2008-07, Vol.96 (1), p.50-54
• Main Authors: Endo, Toshiya, Ozoe, Rieko, Sanpei, Sugako, Shinkai, Koichi, Katoh, Yoshiroh, Shimooka, Shohachi
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adhesive bonding; Adhesives; Dental Bonding; Dental Enamel; Dental research; Dental Stress Analysis; Dentistry; Desiccation; Ethanol; Failure analysis; Humans; Hydrophobic and Hydrophilic Interactions; Materials Testing; Medicine; Methacrylates; Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery; Original Article; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Teeth; Water
• ISSN: 1618-1247; 1618-1255
• DOI: 10.1007/s10266-007-0083-7

The purposes of this study were to evaluate the effects of different degrees of water contamination on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to dental enamel with a moisture-insensitive primer (MIP) adhesive system and to compare the modes of bracket/adhesive failure. A total of 68 human premolars were divided into four groups by primers and enamel surface conditions (desiccated, blot dry, and overwet). In group I, the hydrophobic Transbond XT primer adhesive system was used under desiccated conditions for bonding the brackets; in group II, the hydrophilic Transbond MIP adhesive system was used under desiccated conditions; in group III, the hydrophilic Transbond MIP adhesive system was used under blot dry conditions; and in group IV, the hydrophilic Transbond MIP adhesive system was used under overwet conditions. Shear bond strength was measured with a universal testing machine, and the mode of bracket/adhesive failure was determined according to the adhesive remnant index. The mean shear bond strengths were not significantly different among groups I, II, and III, and were higher than the clinically required range of 6 to 8 MPa. The mean shear bond strength achieved in group IV was significantly lower than that achieved in groups I, II, and III, and also lower than the clinically required values. Bond failure occurred at the enamel-adhesive interface more frequently in group IV than in groups I and III. To achieve clinically sufficient bond strengths with the hydrophilic MIP adhesive system, excess water should be blotted from the water-contaminated enamel surface.