Clinical evaluation of the failure rate of metallic brackets bonded with orthodontic composites

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate in vivo the failure rate of metallic brackets bonded with two orthodontic composites. Nineteen patients with ages ranging from 10.5 to 38.7 years needing corrective orthodontic treatment were selected for study. The enamel surfaces from second premolars to second premolars were treated with Transbond Plus-Self Etching Primer (3M Unitek). Next, 380 orthodontic brackets were bonded on maxillary and mandibular teeth, as follows: 190 with Transbond XT composite (3M Unitek) (control) and 190 with Transbond Plus Color Change (3M Unitek) (experimental) in contralateral quadrants. The bonded brackets were light cured for 40 s, and initial alignment archwires were inserted. Bond failure rates were recorded over a six-month period. At the end of the evaluation, six bond failures occurred, three for each composite. Kaplan-Meyer method and log-rank test (Mantel-Cox) was used for statistical analysis, and no statistically significant difference was found between the materials (p=0.999). Both Transbond XT and Transbond Plus Color Change composites had low debonding rates over the study period.

Shear bond strength of nanofilled flowable resins used for indirect bracket bonding

AIM: To evaluate the bond strength of brackets fixed with different materials (two light-cured nanofilled resins - Transbond Supreme LV and Flow Tain LV, a light-cured resin - Transbond XT (control) and two chemically cured resins for indirect bonding - Sondhi Rapid- Set and Custom I.Q.) using the indirect bonding technique after 10 min and 24 h, and evaluate the type of failure. METHODS: One hundred premolars were selected and randomly divided into groups (n=10) according to the material and fixation period. The brackets were bonded through the indirect technique following the manufacturer's instructions and stored in deionized water at 37°C for 10 min or 24 h. After, the specimens were submitted to a shear bond strength (SBS) test (Instron) at 0.5 mm/min and evaluated for adhesive remnant index (ARI). The data were submitted to ANOVA and Tukey's test (p<0.05) and the ARI scores were submitted to the chi-square test. RESULTS: It could be observed a significant difference among the materials (Flow Tain LV = Transbond Supreme LV = Transbond XT> Sondhi Rapid-Set > Custom I.Q.). There was no significant difference in resistance values between 10 min and 24 h, regardless of the materials. Most groups showed adhesive remaining adhered to the enamel (scores 2 and 3) without statistically significant difference (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: It was concluded that the light-cured nanofilled materials used in indirect bonding showed greater resistance than the chemically cured materials. The period of fixation had no influence on the resistance for different materials.

Clinical evaluation of the failure rates of metallic brackets

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vivo the bonding of metallic orthodontic brackets with different adhesive systems. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty patients (10.5-15.1 years old) who had sought corrective orthodontic treatment at a University Orthodontic Clinic were evaluated. Brackets were bonded from the right second premolar to the left second premolar in the upper and lower arches using: Orthodontic Concise, conventional Transbond XT, Transbond XT without primer, and Transbond XT associated with Transbond Plus Self-etching Primer (TPSEP). The 4 adhesive systems were used in all patients using a split-mouth design; each adhesive system was used in one quadrant of each dental arch, so that each group of 5 patients received the same bonding sequence. Initial archwires were inserted 1 week after bracket bonding. The number of bracket failures for each adhesive system was quantified over a 6-month period. RESULTS: The number of debonded brackets was: 8- Orthodontic Concise, 2- conventional Transbond XT, 9- Transbond XT without primer, and 1- Transbond XT + TPSEP. By using the Kaplan-Meier methods, statistically significant differences were found between the materials (p=0.0198), and the Logrank test identified these differences. Conventional Transbond XT and Transbond XT + TPSEP adhesive systems were statistically superior to Orthodontic Concise and Transbond XT without primer (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the dental arches (upper and lower), between the dental arch sides (right and left), and among the quadrants. CONCLUSIONS: The largest number of bracket failures occurred with Orthodontic Concise and Transbond XT without primer systems and few bracket failures occurred with conventional Transbond XT and Transbond XT+TPSEP. More bracket failures were observed in the posterior region compared with the anterior region.