Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on June 1, 2009
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2009 31(6):658-663; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjp037
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
31/6/658    most recent
cjp037v1
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ulker, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ucar, F. I.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ulker, M.
Right arrow Articles by Ucar, F. I.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Bond strengths of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system applied with and without acid etching for lingual retainer bonding

Mustafa Ulker*, Tancan Uysal**, Sabri Ilhan Ramoglu** and Faruk Izzet Ucar**

* Department of Conservative Dentistry
** Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey

Address for correspondence Dr Tancan Uysal, Erciyes Üniversitesi, Dis Hekimligi Fakültesi, Ortodonti A.D., Melikgazi, 38039 Kayseri, Turkey, E-mail: tancanuysal{at}yahoo.com


   Abstract

The aim of this study was to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in bond strength and failure site location of composite bonded to etched and unetched enamel with an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive and a conventional lingual retainer adhesive system. The crowns of 60 extracted lower human incisors were mounted in acrylic resin leaving the lingual surface of the crowns parallel to the base of the moulds. The teeth were randomly divided into three equal groups: two experimental and a control. Conventional lingual retainer composite (Transbond LR) and antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive (Clearfil Protect Bond), with or without prior etching, were applied to the lingual surface of the teeth by packing the material into cylindrical plastic matrices (Ultradent) with an internal diameter of 2.34 mm and a height of 3 mm to simulate lingual retainer bonding. The shear bond data were analysed using analysis of variance and Tukey’s tests. Fracture modes were analysed by chi-square test.

Statistical analysis showed that the bond strengths of the control (Transbond LR, mean: 24.77 ± 9.25 MPa) and Clearfil Protect Bond with etching, (mean: 20.24 ± 8.5 MPa) were significantly higher than Clearfil Protect Bond without etching, (mean: 12.56 ± 6.93 MPa). In general, a greater percentage of the fractures were adhesive, at the tooth–composite interface (60–65 per cent). No statistically significant difference was found among the groups. The hypothesis is thus rejected. Within the limits of this in vitro model, antibacterial monomer-containing self-etch adhesive with acid etching did not significantly affect shear bond strength when compared with the control. However, the same adhesive used without acid etching resulted in a significant decrease in bond strength.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.