Indirect bonding—a new transfer method
Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University of Graz, Austria
Address for correspondenceDr B. wendl, Klinische Abteilung für Kieferorthopädie, Universitätszahnklinik für ZMK, Auenbruggerplatz 12, A-8036 Graz, Austria, E-mail: dr.b.wendl{at}tele2.at
 |
Summary |
|---|
 Top Summary IntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
The aim of this in vitro study was to investigate both shear bond strength (SBS) by shear testing of indirectly bonded brackets, and the accuracy of a new transfer method, the Aptus bonding device (ABD). For comparison, the SBS of directly bonded brackets in two experimental arrangements was also measured. The precision of the positioning of the indirect bracket transfer was assessed by photographic superimposition and three-dimensional (3D) measurement of the bracket positions on the working and plaster models using a 3D laser scan. Statistical analysis was carried out by means of descriptive and explorative data using the SPSS program. To compare groups, a one-factor analysis of variance and post hoc tests (Tukey-HSD) were used. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
SBS using indirect and direct bonding, with the same experimental arrangement and the same adhesives (Concise and Transbond), showed no significant differences. For direct bonding, using only one adhesive (Transbond), lower values were observed, but they were only statistically significant for the premolar teeth. The clinically required minimum bond strength of 6 MPa was achieved in all groups.
Superimposition of the photographs of the indirectly bonded upper labial segment brackets showed no deviations. The results of the 3D measurement of the positions of the brackets on the working and plaster models only yielded small deviations (0.15 mm along the X-axis in the centre, 0.17 mm along the Y-axis, and 0.19 mm along the Z-axis). The ABD is a useful adjunct to bond placement and does not compromise bond strength.
|
Introduction |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Bonding brackets using light-curing composites is the current technique used for bracket attachment. The advantages include prolonged working time, early removal of excess adhesive, and a higher bond strength, especially when compared with chemically cured composites (Greenlaw et al., 1989
; Jonke et al., 1996; Galindo et al., 1998) and accurate positioning of brackets. This light-cured bonding technique, however, involves considerable time and expenditure. In order to minimize working time with light-curing adhesives, lamps with high light intensities inducing short polymerization times (Silverman and Cohen, 2000; Cacciafesta et al., 2002; Manzo et al., 2004), adhesives which do not require ‘drying out’ (Jobalia et al., 1997; Lippitz et al., 1998; Graf and Jacobi, 2000), and so-called ‘all-in-one adhesives’ (etching, priming, and bonding in one working step; Cinader, 2001; Velo et al., 2002; Larmour, 2003; Miller, 2005) have been developed. Indirect bonding offers a further possibility to shorten the chairside bonding process and to relocate the time factor to the laboratory.
Silverman et al. (1972) used an unfilled methylmethacrylate-based adhesive (BisGMA) in order to bond plastic brackets onto a model. Silverman and Cohen (1975) improved this technique by using a perforated mesh base and ultraviolet (UV) cured BisGMA resin. Most indirect bonding can be traced back to a previously developed process (Thomas, 1978). A liquid catalyst resin is applied during chairside bonding onto a composite layer that has been pre-cured in the laboratory (filled BisGMA adhesive). A thin layer of sealer is additionally bonded onto the enamel. The chemical curing process begins when both components are brought into contact with each other on placement of the tray. The transfer tray is removed after polymerization. Using this technique, bond strength similar to direct bonding was achieved (Hocevar and Vincent, 1988; Shiau et al., 1993a,b). One of the criticisms of this method was that complete polymerization did not occur. For this reason, a modified technique was developed, with both components mixed before application (Hickham, 1993; Moskowitz et al., 1996; Miles, 2000). Other techniques make use of water-soluble adhesives for placing the brackets in the laboratory setting. This adhesive is removed after creation of the transfer tray (White, 1999).
Apart from the use of chemically and thermally cured composites (Sinha et al., 1995a,b), translucent transfer trays also allow light-cured composite adhesive to be used for coating the bracket base. Here, the previously mentioned advantages of light-cured adhesives come to the fore (Kasrovi et al., 1997; Read and Pearson, 1998; Sondhi, 1999).
Numerous investigators have used modifications to achieve improvements in the indirect bonding technique (Simmons, 1978; Moshiri and Hayward, 1979; Read, 1987; Cooper and Sorenson, 1993; Hickham, 1993). The exact positioning of brackets using technical aids (‘ray set’, where adhesive layers allow corrections to be made in all three planes; Melsen and Biaggini, 2002) and the possibility of checking demarcation lines and bracket positions using a fluorescent marker and UV light (Collins, 2000) introduced to this procedure an exact accuracy. This cannot be achieved through direct bonding, particularly in posterior areas, which is crucial to the efficiency of certain biomechanics. The shortened working time is convenient for both patient and orthodontist. This can be compared with the disadvantages in the form of technical reliability, laboratory time, obtaining additional casts, increased costs, and possible hygiene considerations arising from excess adhesive.
Gorelick (1979) reported that only 17 per cent of orthodontists used indirect bonding, and this technique is still today only slowly finding acceptance.
The aim of this investigation was to determine shear bond strength (SBS) and the transfer accuracy of a new indirect bonding method.
|
Materials and methods |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
For indirect bonding, a working model, with embedded teeth (set-up 35–45 simulating the situation in the mouth), was prepared. From this model, a transfer plaster model was replicated, and brackets (Ormco Corporation, West Collins Orange, USA; 340-1500 LJ front, 347-1208 LJ3 right, 347-1308 LJ3 left, 340-1504 LJ 4, and 340-1505 LJ 5) were positioned using self-curing composite adhesive (Concise, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA). The transfer of the brackets from the plaster to the working model was carried out using the Aptus bonding device (ABD; Aptus, Papendrecht, The Netherlands), and the brackets were bonded with the light-cured adhesive Transbond XT (3M Unitek) after the enamel surfaces of the embedded teeth were prepared for acid etching.
Intact human teeth, extracted for orthodontic reasons, were collected (no buccal caries, forceps damage from extraction, or chemical pre-treatment) and stored in a 10 per cent formaldehyde solution until use and then transferred to distilled water 4 hours before use.
The ABD was used as the new transfer device for the indirect bonding (Figure 1). This is a horseshoe-shaped instrument with seven compressed air-driven pistons. Steel wires are bent from the pistons to the brackets, which are bonded onto the model, and are attached to the brackets using a silicone-based polymer. The ABD system is positioned between the upper and lower models by means of a bite registration device.
|
The bite registration, which is obtained at the first appointment, is on a removable, also horseshoe-shaped, thin splint and can be fixed on the ABD system both for the working process in the laboratory and the indirect bonding of the brackets in the mouth. After releasing the brackets from the model, which are then attached to the ABD, transfer to the mouth is carried out after appropriate oral preparation (drying, cleaning, and conditioning the enamel surface) and applying an adhesive onto the bracket base. Next, the patient bites into the bite registration device attached to the ABD. The ABD is now activated with compressed air and the brackets are pressed onto the teeth with a continuous force by means of inward moving pistons. This pressure of 6 atmospheres is equivalent to the pressure of direct bonding and does not alter the bite position in the existing occlusal impressions. After polymerization of the adhesive, the wires are moved out of the way and the ABD is removed.
The teeth were arranged in the embedding device in the shape of a dental arch and fastened with peripheral wax. The buccal surfaces of the teeth were positioned vertical to the embedding plane with the use of a protractor and embedded in self-curing acrylic (Figure 2). The brackets were attached to the plaster model by means of the parallelometer and the self-curing adhesive Concise so that the bracket wing plane lay parallel to the surface of the embedding device (Figures 3 and 4). Excess adhesive around the bracket was carefully removed. The ABD was positioned on the model using the bite registration device. The buccal surfaces of the embedded teeth were cleaned with a non-fluoride paste (pumice stone, Ernst Hinrichs GmbH, Goslar, Germany), defatted with alcohol, and prepared for the acid etching technique.
|
|
|
Subsequently, transfer to the working model was carried out using the bite registration device on the ABD (Figure 5). Indirect bonding was undertaken using Transbond XT after the enamel surfaces were etched with 37 per cent phosphoric acid for 20 seconds. Light curing was carried out for 12 seconds mesial and 12 seconds distal to the brackets using a light-emitting diode lamp (GCE Light, GC Europe, Leuven, Belgium; light intensity 750 mW/cm2, wavelength 440 490 nm, curing time 2 x 12 seconds).
|
The tooth arch was then divided into individual blocks with the cut surfaces vertical to the surface of the embedding device and thus also to the bracket wing plane.
Direct bonding was carried out in two experimental arrangements, each with a different adhesive coating: (1) in an experimental series, as in the indirect method, the brackets were fastened on the plaster teeth using Concise and bonded onto the working model with the embedded teeth using Transbond light-cured adhesive (etching with 37 per cent phosphoric acid and light curing for 12 seconds mesial and 12 seconds distal to the brackets); (2) the brackets were bonded directly onto the enamel surfaces of the embedded teeth (after acid etching preparation) using Transbond XT.
The acrylic blocks were produced in the same way as previously described. SBS testing was carried out using an Instron measuring device (Shimadzu Autograph, AGS-D-Series 10 kND; Instron Corp., Canton, Massachusetts, USA) at a feed rate of 0.5 mm/minute.
By aligning the vertical surfaces of the acrylic block and the mounting device of the testing machine, it was possible to transfer the achieved parallelism and position the shear knife parallel to the seat of the bracket base. The shear knife was led up to the bracket base so that there was no lever action whatsoever. Bond strength was registered in Newtons and indicated as force per area in megapascals.
The accuracy of the positioning of the indirect bracket transfer was assessed by photographic superimpositioning of the bonded upper labial segment brackets on the model after indirect bonding in the mouth and by a three-dimensional (3D) measurement of the bracket positions on the working and plaster models.
Photographs of the model with the bonded brackets of the upper labial segment were superimposed on in vivo photographs of the same detail immediately after indirect bonding and assessed at reference points on the bite registration device. Reproducibility of the film was undertaken using a special rod on which the camera and bite registration devices were attached to one end. The plaster model with the bonded brackets was positioned on the bite registration device and the upper labial segment brackets photographed as image detail. After indirect bonding and applying the bite registration device, the same image detail could be established again, superimposed, and visually checked by the marked reference points.
Measurement of the model was carried out using a 3D laser scan (Willy Tec, Munich, Germany), which scanned the object from above in 0.6 µm steps by means of a laser beam. The reflection of the laser beam from the object was captured by an optical measuring device and electronically evaluated in order to digitally depict the model. The 3D scanned models (working and plaster models) are shown in Figure 6. Two points were determined for each tooth on each model (mesial and distal edge of the bracket base), measured three-dimensionally and finally superimposed. As a control for the superimposition, more points (e.g. mesial and distal cutting edge) were chosen, measured three-dimensionally and superimposed in the same way.
|
To determine the adhesive remnant index (ARI; Årtun and Bergland, 1984
), the brackets were examined under a stereomicroscope with a 10- to 66-fold magnification (Zeiss SV11; Carl Zeiss Corp., Göttingen, Gemany).
Statistical analysis
Evaluation of the data was carried out using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (version 14, SPSS Inc., Chicago, Illinois, USA). To compare groups, a one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc tests (Tukey-HSD) were used. The level of significance was set at P < 0.05.
|
Results |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
The results of the SBS tests are shown in Table 1 and graphically depicted in Figure 7.
|
|
SBS using indirect and direct bonding with the same experimental arrangement (and adhesives) showed no significant differences.
Although lower values were achieved with direct bonding using Transbond, they were only statistically significantly lower for the premolar teeth (there was a difference between this group and the indirect bonding group with a significance of 0.008 after the one-factor ANOVA using the post hoc test and with a significance of 0.003 from the direct bonding group using Concise and Transbond). The clinically required minimum bond strength of 6 MPa was achieved in all groups. (Reynolds, 1975; Littlewood et al., 2001).
Superimposition of the photographs of the labial segment brackets on the plaster model and after indirect bonding in the mouth at marked reference points showed no visual differences.
The results of the 3D measurements when the bracket positions on the working and plaster models were compared and showed good correlation. In the X-axis, there was a mean deviation of 0.15 mm (minimum 0.01, maximum 0.26), in the Y-axis 0.17 mm (minimum 0.1, maximum 0.45), and 0.19 mm (minimum 0.02, maximum 0.3) along the Z-axis.
In the case of superimposition of 3D points on chosen arbitrary measuring points (e.g. mesial and distal cutting edges), there was a good correlation in all three spatial dimensions (Table 2).
|
To determine the mode of fracture, a modification (Oliver, 1988
) of the ARI was used. The results are shown in Table 3.
|
|
Discussion |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
Indirect bonding offers many advantages combined with safety, especially the exact positioning of brackets. One of the main problems, however, is their transfer to the mouth with precision and sufficient adhesion.
Currently, there are various transfer trays for indirect bonding available—opaque, translucent silicone-based polymer, and thermoplastic transfer devices (Collins, 2000; White, 2001), and it is even possible to bond a dental arch in one step using special transfer trays (Echarri and Kim, 2004). Compared with single-tooth transfer caps, these trays shorten the chairside time and result in improved moisture control of the prepared enamel surfaces and protection against respiration air. Using the ABD, it is even possible to bond both arches at the same time.
Bond strength associated with a 5 per cent bracket rate loss seems sufficient for daily clinical work. Littlewood et al. (2001) suggested a minimum adhesion value of 5.4 MPa, where brackets can be lost in 5 per cent of cases. Zachrisson and Brobakken (1978) determined a higher bracket rate loss with indirect bonding. On the other hand, Aguirre et al. (1982) reported a lower rate loss. Sinha et al. (1995a,b) reported a loss of 5 per cent, which corresponds to a percentage rate of 1–5, generally described in the literature, and Gia et al. (2003) also found no significant differences in SBS between indirect and direct bonding.
Other groups have reported no significant difference when comparing SBS between direct and indirect bonding (Hocevar and Vincent, 1988; Milne et al., 1989; Shiau et al., 1993a,b). Additionally, Klocke et al. (2004b) found no significant difference in SBS in the bonding interval between 30 minutes and 24 hours. In vivo investigations have also shown no higher rate loss associated with indirect bonding (Sinha et al., 1995a,b; Polat et al., 2004).
The different bonding methods in these previously mentioned studies all showed sufficient SBS. With respect to the minimum SBS of 6 MPa according to Reynolds (1975) for orthodontic bonding, this was achieved. There were no significant differences between the indirect or direct bonded group. The group directly bonded with only Transbond showed slightly lower values, but these were only significant for the premolar teeth. Particularly with indirect bonding, removal of the transfer trays and direct ligation of the first wire required a certain resistance force. Clinically observed loss of brackets may be traced back to the stress factor at removal of the transfer unit. However, with these patients, the silicone, which links the brackets with the steel wires of the ABD system, was increased to strengthen the attachment. This represents one of the disadvantages: namely, on the one hand, creating sufficient rigidity for the positional stability of the bracket and on the other, maintaining flexibility so that the removal of the transfer tray is not too traumatic or difficult. To maintain position stability, Hickham (1993) used two translucent silicone-based polymer trays with differing hardness: a 2 mm thick tray placed on a 1-mm thick tray.
The thickness of the adhesive layer is an influential factor on SBS (Jost-Brinkmann et al., 1992). Whereas thicker layers are necessary in lingual bonding to balance out tooth shapes, in indirect buccal bonding the adhesive layer is kept as thin as possible. For direct bonding of brackets, the adhesive layer is kept at a minimal level by the force acting against it, while with indirect bonding this pressure is shifted to the transfer trays. Whereas a constant pressure can be built up with single-transfer caps, this is not possible when transferring whole tooth arches. In these circumstances, the ABD system appears to be advantageous since during the bonding procedure a compressed air system of 6 atmospheres is brought to bear on the brackets.
The composite sealer layer could represent a weak spot due to the pre-cured composite layer, as has been described in repair work on composites (Boyer et al., 1984; Saunders, 1990; Shiau et al., 1993a). A variety of repair mechanisms between composite layers have been detailed. On the one hand, a chemical reaction between the composite resin and unsaturated molecule groups takes place on the substrate surface (Vankerckhoven et al., 1982; Puckett et al., 1991). The polymerization between the old substrate and new composite resin is based on free carbon double bonds of the functional group of the existing polymer matrix (Gregory et al., 1990; Lastumäki et al., 2002). Most covalent bonding is possible within the first 24 hours after polymerization (Saunders, 1990).
Additional mechanical bonding occurs when the monomers of the new adhesive create a penetrative network on the cured adhesive by means of a dissolving action (Lastumäki et al., 2002). The probability of bonding with reactive monomers is reduced with increasing degrees of polymerization. Improved penetration on the surface, a dissolving effect and an enlargement of the polymer system has been described for unfilled or low-filled viscose composite resin (Mitsaki-Matsou et al., 1991; Puckett et al., 1991; Guzman and Moore, 1995; Shahdad and Kennedy, 1998; Klocke et al., 2004b). In agreement with Klocke et al. (2002), it was shown that pre-cured composites may not always lead to lower bond strength. However, the bonding time interval of the two composite layers should not exceed 30 days (Klocke et al., 2004a,b).
On the other hand, the increase in SBS is ascribed exactly to the pre-curing of a composite layer on the brackets (Tavas and Watts, 1984). This can be corroborated by results from infrared spectroscopic measurements, which showed incomplete polymerization in the case of light-cured adhesives under the bracket in the centre of the base (Wendl et al., 2004).
Rebonding can be a difficulty with the ABD technique. For individual transfer caps, rebonding of brackets is relatively easy, and even in the case of silicone trays, the production of individual caps over the entire dental arches is straightforward. Rebonding is more difficult with the ABD system as there is no permanent tray to be used; thus direct bonding is required.
One significant advantage of the ABD system is that all types of bracket systems can be used. However, thermally cured adhesives, ceramic brackets, for instance, have to be separately bonded.
The accuracy of the indirect bracket transfer was assessed by superimposing the image details of the bonded labial segment brackets on the model and after indirect bonding in the mouth, and by 3D measurement of the bracket positions on the working and plaster models. The measurement showed a mean deviation of 0.15 mm in the X-axis, 0.17 mm in the Y-axis, and 0.19 mm along the Z-axis. This corresponded to an extremely accurate transfer. The minimally raised maximum values in the Y-axis can be explained by the extra adhesive layer.
However, these were values for an in vitro transfer. In vivo, soft tissue interferences could occur when bonding in the mouth is carried out. A dry-field system is required and, in addition, fluoride-releasing adhesives are recommended since surplus adhesive on the edges of the bracket cannot be avoided (Sinha et al., 1995a,b).
The ARI is influenced by many factors including bracket design and tooth curvature. Diedrich (1981) reported that the fracture site is dependent on the micromechanical retention provided by acid etching, which can be different from tooth to tooth, and even for the same tooth, Ødegaard and Segner (1990) described the weakest link on metal brackets as being between the adhesive and the retentive bracket base (the retentive surface remained filled with adhesive). This applies in 40 per cent of cases of direct bonding with Transbond (owing to the mesh pad which is constantly filled with adhesive, the 100 per cent value was not used in this study). In contrast, indirect bonding with prepared composite adhesive on the bracket base principally resulted in cohesive fractures within the adhesive as a result of a breakdown in the continuity of the integration of C=C double bonds of methacrylate through different times of the curing reaction. Direct bonding in two phases (Concise and Transbond) also resulted in cohesive fractures. Whereas Sinha et al. (1995b) found similar fracture behaviour, Shiau et al. (1993b) reported fractures between the bracket and composite with both direct and indirect bonding.
|
Conclusion |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
In this laboratory investigation, the ABD was found to provide an accurate transfer method for indirect bonding of brackets. This method enables the majority of commercially available bracket systems to be bonded and allows both dental arches to be bonded in one stage. The bond strength tested in vitro is sufficient for orthodontic purposes and comparable with direct bonding.
|
References |
|---|
|
TopSummaryIntroductionMaterials and methodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferences |
|---|
-
Aguirre MJ, King GJ, Waldron JM. Assessment of bracket placement and bond strength when comparing direct bonding to indirect bonding technique. American Journal of Orthodontics (1982) 82:269–276.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. American Journal of Orthodontics (1984) 85:333–340.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Boyer DB, Chan KC, Reinhardt JW. Build-up and repair of light-cured composites: bond strength. Journal of Dental Research (1984) 63:1241–1244.
Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Klersy C, Sfondrini G. Polymerisation with a micro-xenon light of a resin-modified glass ionomer: a shear bond strength study 15 minutes after bonding. European Journal of Orthodontics (2002) 24:689–697.
Cinader D. Chemical processes and performance comparisons of Transbond plus self etching primer. Orthodontic Perspectives (2001) 8:5–6.
Collins J. A precise and predictable laboratory procedure for indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2000) 34:702–705.[Medline]
Cooper RB, Sorenson NA. Indirect bonding with adhesive precoated brackets. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1993) 27:164–167.[Medline]
Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and debonding—a study with the scanning electron microscope. American Journal of Orthodontics (1981) 79:500–522.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Echarri P, Kim TW. Double transfer trays for indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2004) 38:8–13.[Medline]
Galindo HRA, Sadowsky PL, Vlachos C, Jakobson A, Wallace D. An in vivo comparison between a visible light-cured bonding system and a chemically cured bonding system. American Journal of Orthodotontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1998) 113:271–275.[CrossRef]
Gia K, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (2003) 124:577–581.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Gorelick L. Bonding/the state of the art. A national survey. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1979) 13:39–53.[Medline]
Graf I, Jacobi BE. Bond strength of various fluoride-releasing orthodontic bonding systems. Experimental study. Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics (2000) 61:191–198.[CrossRef][Medline]
Greenlaw R, Way DC, Galil KA. An in vitro evaluation of a visible light-cured resin as an alternative to conventional resin bonding systems. American Journal of Orthodontics and Orofacial Orthopedics (1989) 96:214–220.[CrossRef]
Gregory WA, Pounder B, Bakus E. Bond strengths of chemically dissimilar repaired composite resins. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry (1990) 64:664–668.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Guzman A, Moore BK. Influence of surface treatment on bond strength between a heat-activated and a light-activated resin composite. International Journal of Prosthodontics (1995) 8:179–186.[Medline]
Hickham JH. Predictable indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1993) 27:215–217.[Medline]
Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding. Bond strength and failure location. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1988) 94:367–371.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jobalia SB, Valente RM, de Rijk WG, BeGole EA, Evans CA. Bond strength of visible light-cured glass ionomer orthodontic cement. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1997) 112:205–208.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Jonke E, Freudenthaler JW, Bollschweiler S, Tripolt H, Bantleon HP. Vergleichende Untersuchung der Haftfähigkeit von neuen lichthärtenden und chemisch härtenden Klebesystemem in der Kieferorthopädie. Stomatologie (1996) 2:39–43.[Medline]
Jost-Brinkmann PG, Schiffer A, Miethke RR. The effect of adhesive-layer thickness on bond strength. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1992) 26:718–720.[Medline]
Kasrovi PM, Timmins S, Shen A. A new approach to indirect bonding using light-cure composite. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1997) 111:652–656.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Klocke A, Shi J, Kahl-Nieke B, Bismayer U. Bond strength with custom base indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthodontist (2002) 73:176–180.[Web of Science]
Klocke A, Tadic D, Vaziri F, Kahl-Nieke B. Custom base preaging in indirect bonding. Angle Orthodontist (2004a) 74:106–111.[Web of Science][Medline]
Klocke A, Shi J, Vaziri F, Kahl-Nieke B, Bismayer U. Effect of time on bond strength in indirect bonding. Angle Orthodontist (2004b) 74:245–249.[Web of Science][Medline]
Larmour CJ. An ex vivo assessment of a bonding technique using a self-etching primer. Journal of Orthodontics (2003) 30:225–228.
Lastumäki TM, Kallio TT, Vallittu PK. The bond strength of ligth-curing composite resin to finally polymerized and aged glass fiber-reinforced composite substrate. Biomaterials (2002) 23:4533–4539.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Lippitz JS, Robert N, Jacobsen JR. In vitro study of 24-hour and 30-day shear bond strengths of three resin-glass ionomer cements used to bond orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1998) 113:620–624.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC. A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. Journal of Orthodontics (2001) 28:301–305.
Manzo P, Liistro G, De Clerck H. Clinical trial comparing plasma arc and conventional halogen curing lights for orthodontic bonding. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (2004) 125:30–35.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Melsen B, Biaggini P. The ray set: a new technique for precise indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2002) 36:648–654.[Medline]
Miles PG. A comparison of retention rates of brackets with thermally-cured and light-cured custom bases in indirect bonding procedures. Australian Orthodontic Journal (2000) 16:115–117.[Medline]
Miller RA. The laboratory and clinical evaluation of a new 6th generation self-etching primer in orthodontics. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2005) 35:42–45.
Milne JW, Andreasen GF, Jakobsen JR. Bond strength comparison: a simplified indirect technique versus direct placement of brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1989) 96:8–15.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Mitsaki-Matsou H, Karanika-Kouma A, Papadoyiannis Y, Theodoridou-Pahine S. An in vitro study of the tensile strength of composite resins repaired with the same or another composite resin. Quintessence International (1991) 22:475–481.[Medline]
Moshiri F, Hayward M. Improved laboratory procedure for indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1979) 13:472–473.[Medline]
Moskowitz EM, Knight LD, Sheridan JJ, Esmay T, Tovilo K. A new look at indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1996) 30:277–281.[Medline]
Ødegaard J, Segner D. The use of visible light curing composites in bonding ceramic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1990) 97:188–193.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Oliver RG. The effect of different methods of bracket removal on the amount of residual adhesive. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1988) 93:196–200.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirect bonding resins. Angle Orthodontist (2004) 74:405–409.[Web of Science][Medline]
Puckett AD, Holder R, O'Hara JW. Strength of posterior composite repairs using different composite/bonding agent combinations. Operative Dentistry (1991) 16:136–140.[Web of Science][Medline]
Read MJF. Indirect bonding using a visible light cured adhesive. British Journal of Orthodontics (1987) 14:137–141.[Abstract]
Read MJF, Pearson AL. A method for light-cured indirect bonding. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1998) 32:502–503.[Medline]
Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. British Journal of Orthodontics (1975) 3:171–178.
Saunders WP. Effect of fatigue upon the interfacial bond strength of repaired composite resins. Journal of Dentistry (1990) 18:158–162.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shahdad SA, Kennedy JG. Bond strength of repaired anterior composite resins: an in vitro study. Journal of Dentistry (1998) 26:685–694.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Shiau JY, Rasmussen ST, Phelps AE, Enlow DH, Wolf GR. Analysis of the ‘shear’ bond strength of pretreated aged composites used in some indirect bonding techniques. Journal of Dental Research (1993a) 72:1291–1297.
Shiau JY, Rasmussen ST, Phelps AE, Enlow DH, Wolf GR. Bond strength of aged composites found in brackets placed by an indirect technique. Angle Orthodontist (1993b) 63:213–220.[Web of Science][Medline]
Silverman E, Cohen M. A report on a major improvement in the indirect bonding technique. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1975) 9:270–276.[Medline]
Silverman E, Cohen M. Bonding with a plasma-arc curing light and resin-modified glass ionomer. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2000) 34:233–235.
Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly A, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics (1972) 62:236–244.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Simmons M. Improved laboratory procedure for indirect bonding of attachments. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1978) 12:300–302.[Medline]
Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Ghosh J. A thermal-cured, fluoride-releasing indirect bonding system. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1995a) 29:97–100.[Medline]
Sinha PK, Rohrer MD, Nanda RS, Brickman CD. Interlayer formation and its effect on debonding polycrystalline alumina orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1995b) 108:455–463.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (1999) 115:352–398.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Tavas MA, Watts DC. A visible light activated direct bonding material—an in vitro comparative study. British Journal of Orthodontics (1984) 11:33–37.[Abstract]
Thomas RG. Indirect bonding. Simplicity in action. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1978) 13:93–105.
Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, Van Beylen M, Davidson CL, Vanherle G. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. Journal of Dental Research (1982) 61:791–795.
Velo S, Carano A, Carano A. Self etching vs. traditional bonding systems in orthodontics: an in vitro study. Orthodontics and Craniofacial Research (2002) 5:166–168.[CrossRef]
Wendl B, Droschl H, Kern W. Comparative study of polymerization lamps of various technologies by determining the degree of curing of composite samples using infrared spectroscopy. European Journal of Orthodontics (2004) 26:545–551.
White LW. A new and improved indirect bonding technique. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (1999) 33:17–23.[Medline]
White LW. An expedited indirect bonding technique. Journal of Clinical Orthodontics (2001) 33:36–41.
Zachrisson B, Brobakken B. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. American Journal of Orthodontics (1978) 74:62–78.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||