Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 2953

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 27  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 54-60
Clearfil Protect Bond versus Uni-Etch antibacterial self-etchant: A war of giants against shear bond strength


Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Harish Atram
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College, Nagpur, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.179831

Rights and Permissions

Aims and Objectives: To use antibacterial agents with two conventional bonding systems and evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of bracket to enamel. Materials and Methods: Overall, 120 human-extracted first premolars were used. The specimens were equally divided into six sub-groups of 20 samples. Control groups were bonded with Transbond XT light cure (Group I, after etching with 37% phosphoric acid, 3M Unitek ) and Unite self-cure adhesive (Group II, after etching with 37% phosphoric acid, 3M Unitek ). Experimental groups included teeth surface first coated with Clearfil Protect Bond (Kuraray, Osaka, Japan) (and then bonded with Transbond XT [Group III] or Unite [Group IV]) or bonded with Uni-Etch antibacterial self-etchant (and then bonded with Transbond XT [Group V] or Unite [Group VI]). The third generation MBT bracket bonding system with 0.022 slots was used for bonding. All specimens were tested on Instron machine 5567 (SIES Institute of packaging, Nerul, Navi Mumbai, India) to evaluate the SBS. The sheared surfaces were also investigated with a stereomicroscope to assess adhesive remnants index (ARI scores) on the specimen surfaces. Results: Mean SBS in Group I-Group VI was 10.53 (2.91), 9.12 (2.56), 9.86 (1.98), 6.96 (2.92), 9.57 (2.02), and 7.65 (2.34) megapascals, respectively. Significant differences were only seen between Group III and IV and between Group II and IV. With respect to ARI scores, significant differences were seen only for comparison between Groups II, IV, and VI. Conclusion: Newly developed antibacterial agent could be used with conventional bonding systems effectively to decrease white spots; when used with Transbond XT light cure, the original SBS did not get affected, but when used with Unite self-cure bonding system, it led to reduced SBS significantly.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1501    
    Printed24    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded108    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal