title: Comparison of shear bond strength and surface structure between conventional acid etching and air-abrasion of human enamel.
abstract: Recently, air-abrasion technology has been examined for potential applications within dentistry, including the field of orthodontics. The purpose of this study was to compare the traditional acid-etch technique with an air-abrasion surface preparation technique, with two different sizes of abrading particles. The following parameters were evaluated: (a) shear bond strength, (b) bond failure location, and (c) enamel surface preparation, as viewed through a scanning electron microscope. Sixty extracted human third molars were pumiced and divided into three groups of 20. The first group was etched with a 37% phosphoric acid gel for 30 seconds, rinsed for 30 seconds, and dried for 20 seconds. The second and third groups were air-abraded with (a) a 50 microm particle and (b) a 90 microm particle of aluminum oxide, with the Micro-etcher microabrasion machine (Danville Engineering Inc.). All three groups had molar stainless steel orthodontic brackets bonded to the buccal surface of each tooth with Transbond XT bonding system (3M Unitek). A Zwick Universal Testing Machine (Calitek Corp.) was used to determine shear bond strengths. The analysis of variance was used to compare the three groups. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was used to evaluate the residual adhesive on the enamel after bracket removal. The chi square test was used to evaluate differences in the ARI scores among the groups. The significance for all tests was predetermined at p < or = 0.05. The results indicated that there was a significant difference in shear bond strength among the three groups (p = 0.0001). The Duncan Multiple Range test showed a significant decrease in shear bond strength in the air-abraded groups. The chi square test revealed significant differences among the ARI scores of the acid-etched group and the air-abraded groups (chi(2) = 0.0001), indicating no adhesive remained on the enamel surface after debonding when air-abrasion was used. In conclusion, the current findings indicate that enamel surface preparation using air-abrasion results in a significant lower bond strength and should not be advocated for routine clinical use as an enamel conditioner at this time.
authors.affiliation: College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242-1001, USA.
authors.forename: M E
authors.initials: ME
authors.lastname: Olsen
authors.forename: S E
authors.initials: SE
authors.lastname: Bishara
authors.forename: P
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Damon
authors.forename: J R
authors.initials: JR
authors.lastname: Jakobsen
mesh_terms: D000134:Acid Etching, Dental / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D000388:Air; D000537:Aluminum Oxide; D000704:Analysis of Variance; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D001840:Dental Bonding / Q000379:methods* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure*; D004868:Equipment Failure / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D008964:Molar, Third; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D010316:Particle Size; D013193:Stainless Steel; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties
chemical_list: D013193:Stainless Steel; D000537:Aluminum Oxide