Dental Research Journal

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year
: 2019  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 239--244

Comparison of shear bond strength and enamel surface changing between the two-step etching and primer and self-etch primer methods in rebonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study


Shiva Alavi1, Ailin Ehteshami2,  
1 Department of Orthodontics, Dental Materials Research Center, Dental Research Institute, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
2 Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ailin Ehteshami
Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Hezarjerib Street, Isfahan
Iran

Abstract

Background: The aim of this study was to compare shear bond strength (SBS) and enamel surface changing of two methods of bonding in rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 30 human premolars were randomly classified into three equal groups. Two bonding systems were applied. At first bonding, Group 1 and 2 were bonded by conventional etching and primer technique (CEP) and Group 3 by self-etching primer (SEP). Thermocycling for 5000 cycles was done. Then, 30 brackets were debonded and SBS and Adhesive remnant index (ARI) were evaluated. One sample was selected from each group, for SEM, 30 new brackets were used for rebonding. Group 1 was bonded by CEP method and Group 2 and 3 were bonded by SEP method. Thermocycling, SBS, ARI, and scanning electron microscope (SEM) were done in the same protocol of the first bonding. One-way ANOVA, two-sample t-test, and Mann–Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: The mean SBS values were not significantly different between the three groups in the first bonding and rebonding stages (P = 0.22 and 0.24). Further, there was no significant difference between the first bonding and rebonding in SBS values of Groups 1, 2 and 3 (P = 0.44, P = 0.60, and P = 0.56). SEM examination showed obvious differences in the enamel surface between CEP and SEP samples in both first bonding and rebonding. Conclusion: With regard to the advantages of SEP methods, it seems this method can be properly used for rebonding of orthodontic brackets.



How to cite this article:
Alavi S, Ehteshami A. Comparison of shear bond strength and enamel surface changing between the two-step etching and primer and self-etch primer methods in rebonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study.Dent Res J 2019;16:239-244


How to cite this URL:
Alavi S, Ehteshami A. Comparison of shear bond strength and enamel surface changing between the two-step etching and primer and self-etch primer methods in rebonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study. Dent Res J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Dec 5 ];16:239-244
Available from: http://www.drjjournal.net/text.asp?2019/16/4/239/261138


Full Text



 Introduction



Dental bonding was introduced by Bowen following the pioneering work of Buonocore et al. on enamel preparation techniques.[1],[2] These principles were applied to orthodontics afterward and revolutionized appliances physically and cosmetically, as a result of which multibanding systems became outdated and bonded appliances came to being.[3] Further advancement has been made into the realm of bonding with a focus on streamlining the process, boosting the performance in a moist environment, and improving resistance to demineralization.[4] Two major techniques are used for direct bonding of brackets: The conventional two-stage etching and primer method (CEP) and the self-etching primer method (SEP).[5],[6] The benefits suggested for SEP consist of reduced chair-side time, although this is tempered by the need for sound pumicing before bonding procedures to reduce the risk of failure;[7] reduced sensitivity to moisture; and reduced inventory requirements.[8] Differences between these two techniques in the initial bonding of brackets have been investigated comprehensively.[8],[9],[10] In spite of remarkable progress, the bond failure of brackets is commonplace and unfavorable during orthodontic treatment.[11],[12],[13] This failure is usually caused by applying excessive masticatory force by the patient, inappropriate bonding method, or dental contamination during bonding.[14],[15] Sometimes, the practitioner debonds a bracket in order to relocate it more appropriately to gain a better result.[16] The new brackets are mostly rebonded like the first bonding using the same protocol.[13] Conditioning the enamel surface with acid and applying the primer afterward are traditional methods for direct bonding of orthodontic attachments.[17] This technique may cause side effects such as unrestricted enamel loss by inexorable over-range etching[18] and enamel surface vulnerable changes induced by acid-etching.[19],[20] However, etching in the first bonding causes enamel alteration and etching during the second bonding (rebonding) may further induce enamel loss.[13] Montasser et al. reported that etching-induced shallow depressions and pits were still presented on the enamel surface after debonding and removal of all-visible adhesive. So far, the majority of published data have merely focused on the effect of acid etching on the first bonding of brackets. Few studies, however, have been done on the rebonding of brackets using different adhesive systems[21],[22] or on the optimal procedure for rebonding of brackets.[13],[23] Because of acid etching, enamel damage from the first bonding and several advantages of self-etch primers as well as lack of studies comparing these two methods in bracket rebonding, this study was conducted to compare the results of brackets rebonding by CEP and SEP methods in shear bond strength (SBS) and enamel alteration.

 Materials and Methods



This study was approved by reserch and ethics committe of Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran (No. 396168). Thisin vitro experimental study was performed on 30 human premolars that were freshly extracted for the orthodontic purposes. They were kept in an aqueous solution of thymol (0.1% weight/volume) that made with 0.1 grs thymol in 100 ml water by examiner. The root of each tooth was mounted on a block of self-curing acrylic (AcroPars, Marlic Medical Co., Tehran, Iran), with vertical long axis. Each tooth was allocated a unique number, and the teeth were randomly classified into three equal groups. A total of 60 stainless steel Roth brackets (0.022 × 0.028 slot) for premolars were used (Ortho Organizers Inc., California, USA). Two bonding systems were applied:

CEP system: Acid (3M™ ESPE™ Etchants) and nonacidic primer (Transbond XT Primer); adhesive resin (Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive Paste)SEP system: Acidic primer (Transbond plus SEP) and adhesive resin (Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive Paste).

All the above-mentioned materials were from 3M Unitek (Monrovia, California, US). All of the bonding and rebonding and the following procedures were carried out by the same operator. At the first bonding, Groups 1 and 2, including 20 teeth, were bonded by CEP technique according to the instructions provided by the manufacturer. In brief, the enamel surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 s. It was then rinsed and primed with nonacidic primer. Next, adhesive paste was applied on the brackets and the brackets were polymerized for 20 s by a visible light-curing unit (3M Unitek Ortholux LED Curing Light, US) with an output power of 600 mW/cm2. Group 3, including 10 teeth, was bonded by SEP technique. The enamel was etched and primed with acidic primer, which was followed by application of adhesive paste. Two minutes after bonding the brackets, the specimens were kept in deionized water (37°C) for 24 h in a digital incubator (Behdad, Tehran, Iran), each group being kept in a separate container before the following step. After that, the brackets were thermocycled by Thermocycling Machine (Delta Tpo2, Nemo, Mashhad, Iran) for 5000 cycles at 5°C–55°C, with the dwell time of 30 s and transfer time of 10 s between baths, to simulate the heat and humidity of the oral cavity. Then, the 30 brackets were debonded by a universal testing machine using a standard protocol. The SBS of each sample was then evaluated. The shear bond test was performed by a chisel edge which was mounted on the crosshead of a Universal Testing Machine (K–21046, Walter + Bai AG, Lohningen, Switzerland). The edge was targeted at the bracket–enamel interface with a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Next, the debonding forces were recorded for each specimen in Newtons and were then converted to Megapascals. SBS was computed through dividing this force by the bracket base area. The shear bond test was carried out by a technician who was blind to the preparation procedures that were carried out for the groups. Then, the enamel surfaces were tested by a stereomicroscope at magnification of ×10, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was measured based on the criteria established by Artun and Bergland,[24] that is, 0 = no adhesive left on the tooth, 1 = less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth, 2 = more than half of the adhesive left on the tooth, and 3 = all the adhesive left on the tooth, immediately after the assessment of the SBS of debonding. To scanning electron microscope (SEM) examination, one sample with no remnant was randomly selected from each group. The crowns of the three groups were sectioned in mesiodistal direction by a diamond separating disc, which left only a thin layer of the underlying dentin. They were polished by pumice and rubber prophylactic cups for 10 s, were cleaned in distilled water with ultrasonic agitation for 30 min, and were slowly air-dried. They were affixed to SEM stubs, covered with gold, and tested on Jeol JSM-6510A SEM (Tokyo, Japan) operating at 10 kV. To prepare the samples for rebonding, all visible residual adhesive was carefully removed by a low-speed hand-piece with a tungsten bur under light pressure and sufficient air cooling with no water spray. The removal of composite was regarded to be complete when the tooth surface appeared smooth and free of composite to the naked eye under an operatory lamp. A total of 30 brand new brackets were used, and the teeth were assessed by one of the two rebonding techniques illustrated in [Figure 1]. Group 1: 37% phosphoric acid + nonacidic primer + adhesive and Groups 2 and 3: Self-etch acidic primer + adhesive. All the rebonded samples were then immersed in deionized water, each group being placed in a separate container. They were then placed in a humidor at 37°C for 24 h in a digital incubator (Behdad, Tehran, Iran). Thermocycling, SBS testing, ARI, and SEM were done in the same protocol of the first bonding as mentioned before. Descriptive statistics, including mean, standard deviation, and maximum and minimum SBS values were calculated for each group. One-way ANOVA test and two-sample t-test were applied to detect the differences between groups in SBS. Mann-Whitney U-test was used to evaluate the ARI scores. P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant.{Figure 1}

 Results



Descriptive statistics about SBS test for all groups are presented in [Table 1]. The results of one-way ANOVA test showed that the mean SBS values were not significantly different between the three groups in the first bonding (P = 0.22) [Table 1]. Furthermore, in rebonding stage, the mean SBS values were not significantly different between the three groups (P = 0.24) [Table 1]. Further, the findings of t-test showed no significant difference between the first bonding and rebonding in SBS values of Groups 1, 2, and 3 (P = 0.44, P = 0.60, and P = 0.56, respectively). Descriptive statistics of ARI score for all groups are presented in [Table 2]. Mann–Whitney test showed a significant difference in ARI score between Groups 1 and 3 as well as Groups 2 and 3 in the first bonding (P = 0.001 and P = 0.02, respectively). In rebonding stage, ARI score was significantly different between Group 1 and 3 (P = 0.001). Mann–Whitney test showed no significant difference between the first bonding and rebonding in the ARI score of Groups 1, 2, and 3 (P = 0.67, P = 0.21, and P = 0.99), respectively. Analysis of SEM showed obvious differences in the size and depth of the anomalies on the enamel surface between CEP and SEP samples in both first bonding and rebonding [Figure 2] and [Figure 3].{Table 1}{Table 2}{Figure 2}{Figure 3}

 Discussion



There should be sufficient optimal orthodontic bond strength to retain the brackets for a favorable treatment duration.[13],[25] Higher SBS may help to eliminate the unexpected bond failure of brackets during orthodontic therapy, but the risk of enamel fracture and patient discomfort may increase during the removal of brackets.[13],[25] In this study, two methods of bracket bonding (SEP and CEP) were compared in the first bonding and rebonding. Although SBS mean of CEP groups was more than SEP ones, there was no significant difference between SEP and CEP in SBS in both first bonding and rebonding (P = 0.22 and P = 0.24, respectively). These findings were in agreement with the results of Fleming et al., Zhang et al., and Schauseil et al. studies that say SBS of conventional system was notably similar to SEP and resin system.[8],[13],[26] Clinically, sufficient bond strengths for metal brackets to enamel have been suggested to be between 5.9 and 8 MPa.[27] In this study, the mean SBS values of CEP and SEP methods in both first bonding and rebonding were more than this range and were not significantly different with each other. Also in this study, the mean SBS values in the first bonding and rebonding were not significantly different, which is consistent with the findings of Montasser et al. and Nicolás et al. This indicates that SBS values in the repeated bonding and rebonding were not significantly different.[16],[21],[22]

In this study, ARI index was assessed to show the adhesive remnant on the teeth after debonding. In both first bonding and rebonding, ARI index was significantly different between CEP and SEP groups. ARI scores showed that the SEP samples had a higher number of score 1. It means that less than half of the adhesive was left on the teeth, but in CEP samples, more adhesive remnants were left. These results are in agreement with those of Montasser et al., Zeppieri et al., and Oliver studies, indicating that high ARI values observed by conventional phosphoric etch systems are associated with the improved mechanical union between the composite and enamel.[21],[28],[29],[30] Self-etching system shift from more adhesive on the enamel to bracket.[26],[31] Lower adhesive remnant on the teeth in SEP method may save the time of adhesive removal from the teeth after debonding and reduces the invasive process of adhesive removal from enamel.[32] Our results on ARI scores are in contrast with those of Zhang et al., indicating no significant difference between SEP and CEP methods in rebonding.[13] In this study, Group 2 was bonded by CEP method in the first bonding and by SEP method in the rebonding stage. ARI scores of this group in rebonding stage were not significantly different neither with Group 1 nor with Group 3. Enamel surface changing in the first bonding may be responsible for the ARI scores of Group 2 that are between Groups 1 and 3. In addition, our findings showed that ARI scores were not significantly different between the first bonding and rebonding, which is in agreement with the results of Montasser et al.[21]

Further, in this study, enamel surface changing was observed in SEM examination. The enamel treated by CEP method caused more enamel damage than the one treated by SEP method in both first bonding and rebonding stages, which was in line with the results of Ogaard et al. and Hosein et al. studies which indicated self-etching adhesive system reduced the amount of enamel loss[33],[34] and had more conservative etch pattern.[35] Orthodontic brackets are routinely bonded by CEP methods. When a bracket has been debonded, the clinician can bond the new bracket by SEP or CEP methods. Group 2 in this study was selected to show the results of first bonding by CEP method and rebonding by SEP method. Although the SBS values of this group were approximate to Group 1 (CEP) but were not significantly different with those group 1 and 3; Etching from first bonding and its remaining enamel changes in rebonding stage may be responsible for these results. Moreover, the mean SBS values of the first bonding and rebonding of this group were not different. Considering the results of this study and other reasons mentioned for favorable SBS values, decreased chair-side time for bonding and adhesive removal process, decreased technical sensitivity, and lower enamel damage, it seems that SEP method can be a suitable option for rebonding of orthodontic brackets. In this study, thermocycling was used to simulate oral moisture and temperature. However, future clinical studies and with more samples are suggested to compare SEP and CEP methods in rebonding of orthodontic brackets.

 Conclusion



In this study, the mean SBS values of CEP and SEP methods were not significantly different. ARI scores were different between the two methods, and SEP method showed lower enamel damage in SEM analysis, but SEM assumption is only based on one sample in each group and needs further investigations. With regard to the mentioned advantages of SEP methods, it seems this method can be properly used for rebonding of orthodontic brackets.

Acknowledgment

The authors gratefully acknowledge that this report is based on a thesis which was submitted to the School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the MSc degree.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

The authors of this manuscript declare that they have no conflicts of interest, real or perceived, financial or nonfinancial in this article.

References

1Bowen RL. Use of epoxy resins in restorative materials. J Dent Res 1956;35:360-9.
2Buonocore MG, Matsui A, Gwinnett AJ. Penetration of resin dental materials into enamel surfaces with reference to bonding. Arch Oral Biol 1968;13:61-70.
3Newman GV, Snyder WH, Wilson CE Jr. Acrylic adhesives for bonding attachments to tooth surfaces. Angle Orthod 1968;38:12-8.
4Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: Part 1. Current status and projected future developments in bonding and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:445-51.
5Dominguez GC, Tortamano A, Lopes LV, Catharino PC, Morea C. A comparative clinical study of the failure rate of orthodontic brackets bonded with two adhesive systems: Conventional and self-etching primer (SEP). Dental Press J Orthod 2013;18:55-60.
6Van Meerbeek B, Yoshihara K, Yoshida Y, Mine A, De Munck J, Van Landuyt KL, et al. State of the art of self-etch adhesives. Dent Mater 2011;27:17-28.
7Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS 3rd. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: Results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2008;42:625-40.
8Fleming PS, Johal A, Pandis N. Self-etch primers and conventional acid-etch technique for orthodontic bonding: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;142:83-94.
9Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Laboratory evaluation of a self-etching primer for orthodontic bonding. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:411-5.
10Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Six and 12 months' evaluation of a self-etching primer versus two-stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: A randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod 2004;26:565-71.
11Murfitt PG, Quick AN, Swain MV, Herbison GP. A randomised clinical trial to investigate bond failure rates using a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:444-9.
12Banks P, Thiruvenkatachari B. Long-term clinical evaluation of bracket failure with a self-etching primer: A randomized controlled trial. J Orthod 2007;34:243-51.
13Zhang QF, Yao H, Li ZY, Jin L, Wang HM. Optimal enamel conditioning strategy for rebonding orthodontic brackets: A laboratory study. Int J Clin Exp Med 2014;7:2705-11.
14Donker HJ, Melsen B, Frandsen EV. Bacterial degradation of composite bonding materials. Clin Orthod Res 2001;4:112-8.
15Thiyagarajah S, Spary DJ, Rock WP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod 2006;33:198-204.
16Nicolás AI, Vicente A, Bravo LA. The in vitro effect of repeated bonding on the shear bond strength with different enamel conditioning procedures. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:291-6.
17Newman GV. Adhesion and orthodontic plastic attachments. Am J Orthod 1969;56:573-88.
18Fitzpatrick DA, Way DC. The effects of wear, acid etching, and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod 1977;72:671-81.
19Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding: A study with the scanning electron microscope. Am J Orthod 1981;79:500-22.
20Ogaard B. Oral microbiological changes, long-term enamel alterations due to decalcification, and caries prophylactic aspects. In: Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. p. 123-42.
21Montasser MA, Drummond JL, Evans CA. Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I, a laboratory and clinical study. Angle Orthod 2008;78:531-6.
22Montasser MA, Drummond JL, Roth JR, Al-Turki L, Evans CA. Rebonding of orthodontic brackets. Part II, an XPS and SEM study. Angle Orthod 2008;78:537-44.
23Mui B, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. Optimization of a procedure for rebonding dislodged orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 1999;69:276-81.
24Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85:333-40.
25Gange P. The evolution of bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 2015;147:S56-63.
26Schauseil M, Blöcher S, Hellak A, Roggendorf MJ, Stein S, Korbmacher-Steiner H, et al. Shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new premixed self-etching with a reference total-etch adhesive. Head Face Med 2016;12:19.
27Reynolds I. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8.
28Zeppieri IL, Chung CH, Mante FK. Effect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:414-9.
29Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI. Effect of self-etching primers on bond strength – Are they reliable? Angle Orthod 2003;73:64-70.
30Oliver RG. Bond strength of orthodontic attachments to enamel from unerupted and erupted young permanent teeth. Eur J Orthod 1986;8:123-6.
31Thekiya AH, Aileni KR, Rachala MR, Reddy SD, Devi KS, Khan MY, et al. An evaluation of shear bond strength of admira (Ormocer) as an alternative material for bonding orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2018;8:56-61.
32Zope A, Zope-Khalekar Y, Chitko SS, Kerudi VV, Patil HA, Bonde PV, et al. Comparison of self-etch primers with conventional acid etching system on orthodontic brackets. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10:ZC19-22.
33Ogaard B. Enamel effects during bonding-debonding and treatment with fixed appliances. In: Risk Management in Orthodontics: Experts' Guide to Malpractice. 2004. p. 19-46.
34Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, debonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:717-24.
35Gandhi G, Kalra JP Goyal A, Sharma A. Microphotographic assessment of enamel surface using self-etching primer and conventional phosphoric acid: An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9:15-9.