Effects of conventional and self-etching adhesive systems on bond strength of orthodontic attachments bonded to erupted and unerupted teeth

Creative Commons License

Nur M., Uysal T., Yesilyurt C. , Bayram M.

KOREAN JOURNAL OF ORTHODONTICS, vol.40, no.4, pp.267-275, 2010 (Journal Indexed in SCI) identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 40 Issue: 4
  • Publication Date: 2010
  • Doi Number: 10.4041/kjod.2010.40.4.267
  • Page Numbers: pp.267-275


Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure-mode of orthodontic buttons bonded to erupted and unerupted teeth with conventional and self-etching adhesive systems. Methods: Eighty-four erupted and 84 unerupted, human third-molar teeth were used. For both groups, the buccal surfaces of each tooth were assigned one of the following type of adhesive systems (n = 12). A, Conventional systems: 1, Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA); 2, Prime & Bond NT (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, USA); 3, Single Bond (3M ESPE, Minnesota, USA); and B, Self-etching adhesives; 4, Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray, Okayama, Japan); 5, Transbond Plus (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA); 6, Clearfil S3 (Kuraray, Tokyo, Japan); 7, G Bond (GC, Tokyo, Japan). The SBSs of the attachments and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores were recorded. Data were analyzed with analysis of variance (ANOVA), independent-sample t-test and chi-square tests. Results: When the SBSs of erupted and unerupted teeth were compared, only the Clearfil-SE Bond and G-Bond were significantly different. Bond strengths of all adhesive systems were higher in unerupted teeth than erupted teeth, except the Single-Bond system. Conclusions: When using conventional adhesives, bonding to erupted and unerupted teeth may not be significantly different. However, clinicians need to take into consideration the types of self-etching systems before usage. (Korean J Orthod 2010;40(4):267-275)