Volumetric assessment of internal voids and shear bond strength of primer based and non-primer based orthodontic adhesives - an in vitro study

Anjusha Divakar; Ravindra Kumar Jain

doi:10.17126/joralres.2025.010

Anjusha Divakar Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India. http://orcid.org/0009-0005-7773-8788
Ravindra Kumar Jain Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7373-3788

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2025.010

Keywords: Dental Cements, Adhesives, Shear strength, Materials testing, X-Ray Microtomography, Orthodontics

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was volumetric evaluation and comparison of internal voids and shear bond strength (SBS) between primer-based adhesives (PB) and non-primer-based adhesives (NPB).
Material and Methods: Extracted 40 human maxillary premolar teeth were bonded with four different adhesives - group 1: Ormco enlight, group 2: Transbond XT, group 3: Aqualine LC, group 4: Orthofix SPA, followed by three-dimensional microscopic tomographic valuation of the adhesive - tooth bracket interface. The images were reconstructed and 3D volumetric visualisation for mean void volume was performed. Shear bond strength (SBS) assessment was also performed.After shear mode testing, each tooth's enamel surface was examined to determine the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI), which assesses the amount of adhesive remaining after debonding. Data was tabulated and SPSS software was used for statistical analysis with level of significance set at 0.05.
Results: A statistically significant difference (p-value-0.000) in mean void volume and void percentage was observed. SBS showed a statistically significant difference between the groups. (p-value-0.000). ARI scores with the Kruskal-Wallis test revealed statistically significant differences (p-value= 0.000)
Conclusions: Teeth bonded with NPB adhesive (Aqualine LC) had the highest void volume. Teeth bonded with PB adhesive (Transbond XT) had the highest SBS. Minimal adhesive remnants on enamel were noted for teeth bonded with PB adhesives (Transbond XT & Ormco enlight). Ormco Enlight and Transbond XT left little to no adhesive (Scores 0 and 1), while Aqualine LC and Orthofix SPA had higher adhesive retention (Scores 2 and 3).

References

Whitters CJ, Strang R, Brown D, Clarke RL, Curtis RV, Hatton PV, Ireland AJ, Lloyd CH, McCabe JF, Nicholson JW, Scrimgeour SN, Setcos JC, Sherriff M, van Noort R, Watts DC, Wood D. Dental materials: 1997 literature review. J Dent. 1999; 27(6):401-35. http://doi.org/10.1016/s0300-5712(99)00007-x. PMID: 10399409.

Shahabi M, Heravi F, Mokhber N, Karamad R, Bishara SE. Effects on shear bond strength and the enamel surface with an enamel bonding agent. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010; 137(3):375-8. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.03.030. PMID: 20197175.

Britton ST. An analysis of internal voids of orthodontic adhesives via micro-ct. [Thesis], Temple University Libraries. (on line) 2019. http://doi.org/10.34944/dspace/841

Yagci A, Uysal T, Ulker M, Ramoglu SI. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with the custom base indirect bonding technique. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(3):259-63. http://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjp090. Epub 2009 Sep 13. PMID: 19752016.

Hatipoğlu Ö, Küçükönder A, Oral E. Positional factors affecting the bond failure rates in orthodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Orthod Waves. [Epub ahead of print] 2019. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.odw.2019.06.001.

Tümoğlu M, Akkurt A. Comparison of clinical bond failure rates and bonding times between two adhesive precoated bracket systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;155(4):523-528. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.010.

Roelofs T, Merkens N, Roelofs J, Bronkhorst E, Breuning H. A retrospective survey of the causes of bracket- and tube-bonding failures. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(1):111-117. http://doi.org/10.2319/021616-136.1. PMID: 27304230; PMCID: PMC 8388589.

Pashley DH, Tay FR, Breschi L, Tjäderhane L, Carvalho RM, Carrilho M, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. State of the art etch-and-rinse adhesives. Dent Mater. 2011;27(1):1-16. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2010.10.016. PMID: 21112620; PMCID: PMC 3857593.

Öztürk F, Ersöz M, Öztürk SA, Hatunoğlu E, Malkoç S. Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives. Eur J Orthod. 2016;38(2):163-9. http://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv023. PMCID: PMC4914757.

Alkis H, Turkkahraman H, Adanir N. Microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with different adhesive systems. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(1):117-121. http://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149656. PMID: 25 713494; PMCID: PMC4319287.

Hassan AH. Shear bond strength of precoated orthodontic brackets: an in vivo study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2010;2:41-5. PMID: 23662081; PMCID: PMC3645456.

Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB, Arikan S, Karabulut E, Gülşahi K. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):1028-34. http://doi.org/10.2319/101805-368. PMID: 17090167.

Bayar Bilen H, Çokakoğlu S. Effects of one-step orthodontic adhesive on microleakage and bracket bond strength: An in vitro comparative study. Int Orthod. 2020;18(2):366-373.

http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2020.01.010. PMID: 32111576.

Ashwatha Pratha A, Sushil Chakravarthi NC, Krishnaraj R, Davis DR, Janani R. Self-Priming Orthodontic Adhesive (SPA)- A Review. Int J Chem Biochem Sci. 2023; 24(5): 382-3874.

Enamel etching and dental adhesives. In: Advanced Dental Biomaterials. Woodhead Publishing, 2019

Bazargani F, Magnuson A, Löthgren H, Kowalczyk A. Orthodontic bonding with and without primer: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2016; 38(5):503-7. http://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjv075. PMID: 26476074.

Ok U, Aksakalli S, Eren E, Kechagia N. Single-component orthodontic adhesives: comparison of the clinical and in vitro performance. Clin Oral Investig. 2021;25(6):3987-3999. http://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03729-z. PMID: 33404765.

Purk JH, Dusevich V, Glaros A, Eick JD. Adhesive analysis of voids in Class II composite resin restorations at the axial and gingival cavity walls restored under in vivo versus in vitro conditions. Dent Mater. 2007;23(7):871-7. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2006.07.001. PMID: 16950506; PM CID: PMC1909915.

Britton ST. AN ANALYSIS OF INTERNAL VOIDS OF ORTHODONTIC ADHESIVES VIA MICRO-CT. 2019.

Bhushan R, Jeri SY, Narayanamurthy S, Vrinda SM, Soans CR, Reddy H. Assessment of Microleakage under Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets Bonded with Various Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2021;22(6):620-623. PMID: 34393117.

Arikan S, Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB. Microle-akage beneath ceramic and metal brackets photopolymerized with LED or conventional light curing units. Angle Orthod. 2006;76(6):1035-40. http://doi.org/10.2319/110905-392.