Skip Navigation


The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on September 30, 2005
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2006 28(1):74-77; doi:10.1093/ejo/cji072
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
28/1/74    most recent
cji072v1
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 ISI Web of Science
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 Larmour, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stirrups, D. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Larmour, C. J.
Right arrow Articles by Stirrups, D. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

An investigation into the bonding of orthodontic attachments to porcelain

C. J. Larmour*, G. Bateman** and D. R. Stirrups***

* Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital, ** Birmingham Dental Hospital and School, and *** Dundee Dental Hospital and School, UK

Address for correspondence Colin J. Larmour, Orthodontic Department, Argyll House, Cornhill Road, Aberdeen AB25 5ZR, UK, E-mail: colin.lamour{at}arh.grampian.scot.nhs.uk

This study assessed bonding of orthodontic brackets to porcelain teeth using two different surface preparation techniques and comparing two bonding systems, Fuji Ortho L.C.TM and TransbondTM.

Four groups of 20 porcelain premolar teeth were bonded with metal orthodontic brackets (0.022 inch Minitwin, 3M Unitek) according to the following protocol: TransbondTM with a phosphoric acid etch (group 1), TransbondTM with a hydrofluoric acid etch (group 2), Fuji Ortho L.C.TM with a hydrofluoric acid etch (group 3), and Fuji Ortho L.C.TM with a phosphoric acid etch (group 4). All groups were bonded with a silane coupling agent. The teeth were debonded with an Instron universal testing machine. Bond strength, site of bond failure and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were recorded for each group. Differences between groups were analysed statistically.

The composite resin groups (groups 1 and 2) had the highest mean bond strength values at 7.9 and 9.7 MPa, respectively. The resin-modified glass ionomer cement groups (RMGIC; groups 3 and 4) had the lowest mean bond strength values at 6.3 and 1.8 MPa, respectively. The mean bond strength of group 3 was significantly lower than all other groups (P < 0.0001). The Fuji groups had also significantly (P < 0.001) lower ARI scores than the composite groups (groups 1 and 2). Most samples experienced porcelain surface damage, except group 4.

In conclusion, the highest bond strength levels were achieved with a conventional composite resin cement (groups 1 and 2). No significant differences in bond strength were found between the hydrofluoric and phosphoric acid etch technique.


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.