Are flowable resin-based composites a reliable material for metal orthodontic bracket bonding?

Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Volumn 11, Issue 4, 2010, Pages 17-24

  Pick, Bárbara ^a   Rosa, Vinícius ^a   Azeredo, Tatiana Rocha ^b   Filho, Eduardo Augusto Mascarenhas Cruz ^b   Miranda Júnior, Walter Gomes ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SÃO PAULO   (Brazil)

^b NONE

Author keywords

Flowable composites; Laboratory research; Orthodontic bracket bonding; Resinbased composites; Tensile bond strength

Indexed keywords

BISPHENOL A BIS(2 HYDROXYPROPYL) ETHER DIMETHACRYLATE; DENTAL ALLOY; FILL MAGIC; FLOWABLE HYBRID COMPOSITE; PHOSPHORIC ACID; RESIN; RESIN CEMENT; STAINLESS STEEL; TETRIC FLOW COMPOSITE RESIN; TRANSBOND XT; WATER; WAVE FLOWABLE COMPOSITE;

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL ACID ETCHING; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CARE; ENAMEL; INSTRUMENTATION; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL STRESS; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; RANDOMIZATION; SURFACE PROPERTY; TEMPERATURE; TENSILE STRENGTH; TIME; ULTRASTRUCTURE; VISCOSITY;

ACID ETCHING, DENTAL; ANIMALS; BISPHENOL A-GLYCIDYL METHACRYLATE; CATTLE; COMPOSITE RESINS; DENTAL ALLOYS; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL ENAMEL; DENTAL STRESS ANALYSIS; MATERIALS TESTING; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; PHOSPHORIC ACIDS; RANDOM ALLOCATION; RESIN CEMENTS; STAINLESS STEEL; STRESS, MECHANICAL; SURFACE PROPERTIES; TEMPERATURE; TENSILE STRENGTH; TIME FACTORS; VISCOSITY; WATER;

EID: 79952196962     PISSN: None     EISSN: 15263711     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-11-4-17     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Fajen VB, Duncanson MG Jr., Nanda RS, Currier GF, Angolkar PV. An in vitro evaluation of bond strength of three glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 97(4):316-22.
2. Hajrassie MK, Khier SE. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodonticbrackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(3):384-90.
3. Sunna S, Rock WP. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod. 1998; 25(4):283-7.
4. Hegarty DJ, Macfarlane TV. In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002; 121(5):496-501.
5. Prietsch JR, Spohr AM, Lima da Silva IN, Pinheiro Beck JC, Silva Oshima HM. Development of a device to measure bracket debonding force in vivo. Eur J Orthod. 2007; 29(6):564-70.
6. Yamamoto A, Yoshida T, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T, Kurokawa H, Miyazaki M. Orthodontic bracket bonding: enamel bond strength vs time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006; 130(4):435.e1-6.
7. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975; 2(2):171-8.
8. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1105-9.
9. Lee IB, Son HH, Um CM. Rheologic properties of flowable, conventional hybrid, and condensable composite resins. Dent Mater. 2003; 19(4):298-307.
10. Bayne SC, Thompson JY, Swift EJ Jr, Stamatiades P, Wilkerson M. A characterization of first-generation flowable composites. J Am Dent Assoc. 1998; 129(5):567-77.
11. Meguro D, Hayakawa T, Saito K, Kawasaki M, Kasai K. Effect of thermal cycling on shear bond strength with different types of selfetching primer for bonding orthodontic brackets using a MMA-based resin. Dent Mater J. 2005; 24(1):30-5.
12. Reis A, Grande RH, Oliveira GM, Lopes GC, Loguercio AD. A 2-year evaluation of moisture on microtensile bond strength and nanoleakage. Dent Mater. 2007; 23(7):862-70.
13. Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod. 1976; 3(2):91-5.
14. Uysal T, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod. 2004; 74(5):697-702.
15. Della Bona A, van Noort R. Shear vs. tensilebond strength of resin composite bonded to ceramic. J Dent Res. 1995; 74(9):1591-6.
16. D'Attilio M, Traini T, Di Iorio D, Varvara G, Festa F, Tecco S. Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle Orthod. 2005; 75(3):410-5.
17. Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988; 94(3):201-6.
18. Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer RA Jr. Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1991; 100(3):251-8.
19. Ryou DB, Park HS, Kim KH, Kwon TY. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008; 78(6):1105-9.
20. Saleh F, Taymour N. Validity of using bovine teeth as a substitute for human counterparts in adhesive tests. East Mediterr Health J. 2003; 9(1-2):201-7.
21. Sanches RP, Otani C, Damião AJ, Miyakawa W. AFM characterization of bovine enamel and dentine after acid-etching. Micron. 2009; 40(4):502-6.
22. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res. 1983; 62(10):1076-81.
23. Hofmann N, Papsthart G, Hugo B, Klaiber B. Comparison of photo-activation versus chemical or dual-curing of resin-based luting cements regarding flexural strength, modulus and surface hardness. J Oral Rehabil. 2001; 28(11):1022-8.
24. MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998; 113(3):276-81.
25. Bradburn G, Pender N. An in vitro study of the bond strength of two light-cured composites used in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets to molars. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992; 102(5):418-26.
26. Nkenke E, Hirschfelder U, Martus P, Eberhard H. Evaluation of the bond strength of different bracket-bonding systems to bovine enamel. Eur J Orthod. 1997; 19(3):259-70.