Bond strength for orthodontic brackets contaminated by blood: Composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements

Likith Reddy, Victoria A. Marker, Edward Ellis

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

14 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)206-213
Number of pages8
JournalJournal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Volume61
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 1 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthodontic Brackets
Glass Ionomer Cements
Composite Resins
Dental Enamel
Shear Strength
Stainless Steel
Orthodontics
Plastics
Tooth

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Surgery

Cite this

Bond strength for orthodontic brackets contaminated by blood : Composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements. / Reddy, Likith; Marker, Victoria A.; Ellis, Edward.

In: Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Vol. 61, No. 2, 01.02.2003, p. 206-213.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{2cd52240da294ae7bd6d203ead368fff,
title = "Bond strength for orthodontic brackets contaminated by blood: Composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements",
abstract = "Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths of a self-cured glass ionomer versus composite cement for bonding of stainless steel buttons with various enamel surface and setting conditions. Materials and Methods: Stainless steel orthodontic buttons were bonded using composite material under 3 different enamel and setting conditions: 1) conditioned and dry enamel surface, 2) conditioned and precontamination of the enamel surface with blood before bonding, 3) conditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding and were compared with 3 different enamel conditions and setting for bonding with the glass ionomer cement: 1) nonconditioned and wet enamel surfaces, 2) nonconditioned and blood contamination of enamel before bonding, and 3) nonconditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding. The brackets were bonded to 109 recently extracted teeth and allowed to set in a moist plastic container for 24 hours. They were subsequently tested in shear mode with a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded. In addition, the location of the bond failure was studied. Results: Composite was capable of sustaining greater forces than the resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Hence, it took more force to debond a bracket cemented with composite than with resin-modified glass ionomer. The effect of contamination was similar in both of the materials, and the magnitude of the decrease in bond strength was nearly of the same proportion. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material. The type of bond failure was significantly different for the different materials, and there were significant differences among the treatment conditions. Conclusion: Composite resin had significantly greater shear strength than resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Both materials showed a significant decrease in bond strength when precontaminated with blood. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material.",
author = "Likith Reddy and Marker, {Victoria A.} and Edward Ellis",
year = "2003",
month = "2",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1053/joms.2003.50039",
language = "English",
volume = "61",
pages = "206--213",
journal = "Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery",
issn = "0278-2391",
publisher = "W.B. Saunders Ltd",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bond strength for orthodontic brackets contaminated by blood

T2 - Composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer cements

AU - Reddy, Likith

AU - Marker, Victoria A.

AU - Ellis, Edward

PY - 2003/2/1

Y1 - 2003/2/1

N2 - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths of a self-cured glass ionomer versus composite cement for bonding of stainless steel buttons with various enamel surface and setting conditions. Materials and Methods: Stainless steel orthodontic buttons were bonded using composite material under 3 different enamel and setting conditions: 1) conditioned and dry enamel surface, 2) conditioned and precontamination of the enamel surface with blood before bonding, 3) conditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding and were compared with 3 different enamel conditions and setting for bonding with the glass ionomer cement: 1) nonconditioned and wet enamel surfaces, 2) nonconditioned and blood contamination of enamel before bonding, and 3) nonconditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding. The brackets were bonded to 109 recently extracted teeth and allowed to set in a moist plastic container for 24 hours. They were subsequently tested in shear mode with a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded. In addition, the location of the bond failure was studied. Results: Composite was capable of sustaining greater forces than the resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Hence, it took more force to debond a bracket cemented with composite than with resin-modified glass ionomer. The effect of contamination was similar in both of the materials, and the magnitude of the decrease in bond strength was nearly of the same proportion. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material. The type of bond failure was significantly different for the different materials, and there were significant differences among the treatment conditions. Conclusion: Composite resin had significantly greater shear strength than resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Both materials showed a significant decrease in bond strength when precontaminated with blood. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material.

AB - Purpose: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths of a self-cured glass ionomer versus composite cement for bonding of stainless steel buttons with various enamel surface and setting conditions. Materials and Methods: Stainless steel orthodontic buttons were bonded using composite material under 3 different enamel and setting conditions: 1) conditioned and dry enamel surface, 2) conditioned and precontamination of the enamel surface with blood before bonding, 3) conditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding and were compared with 3 different enamel conditions and setting for bonding with the glass ionomer cement: 1) nonconditioned and wet enamel surfaces, 2) nonconditioned and blood contamination of enamel before bonding, and 3) nonconditioned and immediate blood contamination postbonding. The brackets were bonded to 109 recently extracted teeth and allowed to set in a moist plastic container for 24 hours. They were subsequently tested in shear mode with a universal testing machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure were recorded. In addition, the location of the bond failure was studied. Results: Composite was capable of sustaining greater forces than the resin-modified glass ionomer materials. Hence, it took more force to debond a bracket cemented with composite than with resin-modified glass ionomer. The effect of contamination was similar in both of the materials, and the magnitude of the decrease in bond strength was nearly of the same proportion. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material. The type of bond failure was significantly different for the different materials, and there were significant differences among the treatment conditions. Conclusion: Composite resin had significantly greater shear strength than resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. Both materials showed a significant decrease in bond strength when precontaminated with blood. The postcontamination values were not significantly different from the uncontaminated bond strength for either material.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037310804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037310804&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1053/joms.2003.50039

DO - 10.1053/joms.2003.50039

M3 - Article

C2 - 12618999

AN - SCOPUS:0037310804

VL - 61

SP - 206

EP - 213

JO - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

JF - Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery

SN - 0278-2391

IS - 2

ER -