Effects of direct and indirect bonding techniques on bond strength and microleakage after thermocycling


Creative Commons License

Ozturk F., Babacan H., Nalcaci R., Kustarci A.

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, cilt.39, sa.6, ss.393-401, 2009 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier

  • Yayın Türü: Makale / Tam Makale
  • Cilt numarası: 39 Sayı: 6
  • Basım Tarihi: 2009
  • Doi Numarası: 10.4041/kjod.2009.39.6.393
  • Dergi Adı: KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS
  • Derginin Tarandığı İndeksler: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus
  • Sayfa Sayıları: ss.393-401
  • Karadeniz Teknik Üniversitesi Adresli: Hayır

Özet

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets and microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex bonded with a direct and an indirect bonding technique after thermocycling. Methods: Fifty non-carious human premolars were divided into two equal groups. In the direct bonding group a light-cured adhesive and a primer (Transbond XT) was used. In the indirect-bonding group, a light-cured adhesive (Transbond XT) and chemical-cured primer (Sondhi Rapid Set) were used. After polymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 24 hours and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). For the microleakage evaluation, 10 teeth from each group were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, and examined under a stereomicroscope. Fifteen teeth from each group were used for SBS testing with the universal testing machine and adhesive remnant index (ARI) evaluation. Data were analyzed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Chi-square test, and Fisher's exact test. Results: There were no statistical differences on SBS and microleakage between the two bonding techniques. The indirect bonding group had a significantly lower ARI score. Bracket failures were obtained between enamel-resin interfaces. Conclusions: The type of bonding technique did not significantly affect the amount of microleakage and SBS. (Korean J Orthod 2009;39(6):393-401)