Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Adv Clin Exp Med
Impact Factor (IF) – 1.227
Index Copernicus (ICV 2018) – 157.72
MNiSW – 40
Average rejection rate – 84.38%
ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download PDF

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2019, vol. 28, nr 6, June, p. 807–813

doi: 10.17219/acem/94141

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Evaluation of changes in enamel thickness after orthodontic treatment depending on the force applied to remove orthodontic brackets: OCT analysis and universal testing machine

Monika Elżbieta Machoy1,2,A,B,C,D,E,F, Julia Seeliger2,A,B,C,D,F, Liliana Szyszka-Sommerfeld1,B,E,F, Robert Koprowski3,C,F, Tomasz Gedrange2,A,E,F, Krzysztof Woźniak1,A,E,F

1 Division of Orthodontics, Pomeranian Medical University, Szczecin, Poland

2 Division of Orthodontics, Technische Universität Dresden, Germany

3 Department of Biomedical Computer Systems, Faculty of Computer Science and Materials Science, Institute of Computer Science, University of Silesia, Katowice, Poland

Abstract

Background. Adhesive materials used in orthodontics have contributed to the broadening of treatment options with fixed braces. The adhesive materials physically and chemically bond to the enamel surface and orthodontic bracket base, which, apart from offering advantages, also entails the risk of enamel damage when removing these materials from the tissue surface after the treatment is complete.
Objectives. The objective of this study was to assess how the bond strength of adhesive materials affects enamel thickness after removing brackets and whether the type of bonding system affects the amount of adhesive strength of the discussed materials.
Material and Methods. The tests were carried out on 2 groups of 40 bovine teeth in each group. In the 1st group, the classical orthophosphoric acid and the Transbond Plus self-etching primer (SEP) were used. In the 2nd group, the Transbond XT SEP was applied. In both groups, Transbond XT Light Cure Adhesive was used. The same metal orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface. Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) scans were made before and after removing brackets, which enabled tissue thickness measurements. The bond strength was evaluated using a universal testing machine. Parametric tests were performed on all obtained variables. Student’s t-tests for independent samples and analysis of correlation with Pearson’s r were carried out.
Results. The bond strength between the orthodontic bracket and enamel is statistically significantly different in the 1st group and the 2nd group, and is higher in the 2nd group.
Conclusion. There are no significant differences in enamel thickness depending on the bonding system type and there is no correlation between the enamel thickness and the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to the enamel.

Key words

orthodontics, adhesives, enamel, optical coherence tomography, shear bond strength

References (37)

  1. Powers JM, Messersmith ML. Enamel etching and bond strength. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T, eds. Orthodontic Materials: Scientific and Clinical Aspects. Stuttgart, Germany: Georg Thieme Verlag; 2001:105–122.
  2. Øgaard B, Bishara SE, Duschner H. Enamel effects during bonding–debonding and treatment with fixed appliances. In: Graber TM, ­Eliades T, Athanasiou AE, eds. Risk Management in Orthodontics: Experts’ Guide to Malpractice. Batavia, IL: Quintessence Publishing Co.; 2004:19–46.
  3. Tay FR, Pashley DH. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-etching systems. Depth of penetration beyond dentin smear layers. Dent Mat. 2001;17(4):296–308.
  4. Attar N, Taner TU, Tülümen E, Korkmaz Y. Shear bond strength of ortho­dontic brackets bonded using conventional vs one- and two step self-etching/adhesive systems. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(3):518–523.
  5. Shinya M, Shinya A, Lassila LV, et al. Treated enamel surface patterns associated with five orthodontic adhesive systems: Surface morphology and shear bond strength. Dent Mat J. 2008;27(1):1–6.
  6. Nishida K, Yamauchi J, Wada T, Hosoda H. Development of a new bonding system. J Dent Res. 1993;72:137.
  7. Friedl KH, Oberlander H, Schmalz G, et al. Bond strength of composite resins using a new one-step adhesive system. J Dent Res. 2000;79:33–36.
  8. Hosein 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(6):717–724.
  9. Horiuchi S, Kaneko K, Mori H, et al. Enamel bonding of self-etching and phosphoric acid-etching orthodontic adhesives in simulated clinical conditions: Debonding force and enamel surface. Dent Mat J. 2009;28(4):419–425.
  10. Cal-Neto JP, Miguel JA. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of the bonding mechanism of a self-etching primer on enamel. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(1):132–136.
  11. Miyazaki M, Hirohata N, Takagaki K, et al. Influence of self-etching primer drying time on enamel bond strength of resin composites. J Dent. 1999;27(3):203–207.
  12. Dorminey JC, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124(4):410–413.
  13. Bishara SE, Von Wald L, Laffoon JF, et al. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;119(6):621–624.
  14. Ireland AJ, Hosein I, Sherriff M. Enamel loss at bond-up, debond and clean-up following the use of a conventional light-cured composite and a resin-modified glass polyalkenoate cement. Europ J Orthod. 2005;27(4):413–419.
  15. Ozcan M, Finnema K, Ybema A. Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding. Europ J Orthod. 2008;30(2):176–182.
  16. Ostman-Andersson E, Marcusson A, Hörstedt P. Comparative SEM studies of the enamel surface appearance following the use of glass ionomer cement and a diacrylate resin for bracket bonding. Swed Dent J. 1993;17(4):139–146.
  17. Koprowski R, Machoy M, Woźniak K, Wróbel Z. Automatic method of analysis of OCT images in the assessment of the tooth enamel surface after orthodontic treatment with fixed braces. Biomed Eng Online. 2014;13:48.
  18. Boruziniat A, Khazaei Y, Motaghi S, Moghaddas M. Evaluation of bond strength of orthodontic brackets without enamel etching. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015;7(4):519–523.
  19. Brauchli L, Zeller M, Wichelhaus A. Shear bond strengths of seven self-etching primers after thermo-cycling. J Orof Orthop. 2011;72(5):371–380.
  20. Hellak A, Rusdea P, Schauseil M, Stein S. Enamel shear bond strength of two orthodontic self-etching bonding systems compared to Transbond™ XT. J Orof Orthop. 2016;77(6):391–399.
  21. Menini A, Cozzani M, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Cozzani P, Gandini P. A 15-month evaluation of bond failures of orthodontic brackets bonded with direct versus indirect bonding technique: A clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2014;15(1):1–6.
  22. Zielinski V, Reimann S, Jager A, Bourauel C. Comparison of shear bond strength of plastic and ceramic brackets. J Orof Orthop. 2014;75(5):345–357.
  23. Richter C, Jost-Brinkmann PG. Shear bond strength of different adhesives tested in accordance with DIN 13990-1/-2 and using various methods of enamel conditioning. J Orof Orthop. 2015;76(2):175–187.
  24. Retief DH. Effect of conditioning the enamel with phosphoric acid. J Dent Res. 1973;52(2):333–341.
  25. Arakawa Y, Takahashi Y, Sebata M. The effect of acid etching on the cervical region of the buccal surface the human premolar, with special reference to direct bonding techniques. Am J Orthod. 1979;76(2):201–208.
  26. Asmussen E. Penetration of restorative resins into acid etched enamel. II. Dissolution of entrapped air in restorative resin monomers. Acta Odont Scand. 1977;35(4):183–191.
  27. Voss JE, Charbeneau GT. A scanning electron microscope comparison of three methods of bonding resin to enamel rod ends and longitudinally cut enamel. J Am Dent Assoc. 1979;98(3):384–389.
  28. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Brit J Orthod. 1985;2:171–178.
  29. Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974;1(3):265–284.
  30. Mundstock KS, Sadowsky PL, Lacefield W, Bae S. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentof Orthop. 1999;116(6):635–641.
  31. Heravi F, Moazzami SM, Ghaffari N, Jalayer J, Bozorgnia Y. Evaluation of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets using trans-illumination technique with different curing profiles of LED light-curing unit in posterior teeth. Prog Orthod. 2013;14:49.
  32. Gwinnett AJ, Yu S. Effect of long-term water storage on dentin bonding. Am J Dent. 1995;8(2):109–111.
  33. Kitsako Y, Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Tagami J. The influence of storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement. J Dent. 2000;16(1):1–6.
  34. Murray SD, Hobson RS. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentof Orthop. 2003;123(1):2–9.
  35. Iijima M, Ito S, Yuasa T, Muguruma T, Saito T, Mizoguchi I. Bond strength comparison and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of three or-thodontic bonding systems. J Dent Mat. 2008;27(3):392–399.
  36. de Oliveira CH, da Silva AM, Briso AL, Briso AL, Sundfeld ML. Resin tag length of one-step and self-etching adhesives bonded to unground enamel. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2005;46(3):43–49.
  37. Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Soliman MM, Warren JJ, Laffoon JF, Ajlouni R. Comparison of bonding time and shear bond strength between a conventional and a new integrated bonding system. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(2):237–242.