Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

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


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2012  |  Volume : 23  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 747-752
Influence of adhesion promoters and curing-light sources on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

Department of Dentistry at Potiguar University (Laureate International Universities), Natal, RN, Brazil

Correspondence Address:
Boniek Castillo Dutra Borges
Department of Dentistry at Potiguar University (Laureate International Universities), Natal, RN
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.111252

Rights and Permissions

Context: The effect of different curing units on bond strength of orthodontic brackets is still unclear when utilizing nanofilled composites in comparison with traditional Transbond-XT. Aim: To evaluate the influence of two adhesive promoters and two curing-light units on the shear bond strength (SBS) of orthodontic brackets. Settings and Design: The factors under study were adhesive promoters (nanofilled composite - Filtek-Z350 flowable restorative and conventional orthodontic adhesive - Transbond XT) and curing-light units (halogen lamp - Ultralux and LED device - Radii-Call). Material and Methods: Forty lower bovine incisors were utilized. The teeth were distributed in four groups (n = 10) according to the combination between adhesive promoters and curing-light units. Scotchbond Multipurpose-Plus and Transbond-XT primer were used to bond Filtek-Z350 Flowable Restorative and Transbond-XT, respectively. After storage in distilled water for 24 h, the brackets were subjected to SBS test at a speed of 0.5 mm/min until bracket debonding. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was assigned at fractured specimens. Statistical analysis used: Analysis of variance and Tukey test were utilized. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare ARI scores between the groups (p<0.05). Results: There was statistically significant difference between the adhesive promoters tested. Transbond-XT showed higher SBS means than Filtek-Z350. There was no statistically significant difference between both curing-light units tested in this study, neither between ARI scores. Conclusions: The conventional orthodontic adhesive presented higher bond strength than the nanofilled composite, although both materials interacted similarly to the teeth. The curing-light devices tested did not influence on bond strength of orthodontic brackets.

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
    PDF Downloaded101    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal