Enamel conditioning for orthodontic bonding with a single-step bonding agent.
OBJECTIVE
In-vitro evaluation of an alternative method to the conventional acid etch technique.


METHODS
240 human anterior and posterior teeth were divided into 16 groups of 15 teeth each. Group variables were: tooth type, enamel conditioning technique (Prompt L-Pop((R)): 3M Espe, Seefeld, Germany, or 37% phosphoric acid and bonding), adhesive (Transbond trade mark XT: 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA and ENlight((R)): Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), and testing procedure (shear and tensile bond strength). Upper lateral incisors and premolar brackets (Mini-Diamond((R)): Ormco, Orange, CA, USA) were used. Intergroup differences were analyzed by an analysis of variance. The enamel surface and the failure mode of debonded specimens were investigated with light and scanning electron microscopy.


RESULTS
Despite a tendency towards a higher bond strength after phosphoric acid conditioning, no statistically significant differences were found between the enamel conditioning methods. Statistically significant differences were recorded for the different adhesives: bond strength with Transbond trade mark XT was higher than with Enlight((R)).


CONCLUSIONS
The single-step bonding agent sems to provide an acceptable bond strength between adhesive and enamel. No enamel fractures were detected. In vivo studies will be conducted to investigate the clinical performance of the new material.
Korbmacher
Heike
H
Department of Orthodontics, University of Hamburg, Germany. korbmach@uke.uni-hamburg.de
Klocke
Arndt
A
Huck
Lothar
L
Kahl-Nieke
Bärbel
B
D000134:Acid Etching, Dental; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; D001840:Dental Bonding; D006801:Humans; D066298:In Vitro Techniques; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D019279:Resin Cements; D033081:Shear Strength; D013718:Tensile Strength
C418867:Enlight; C408584:Prompt L-Pop; D019279:Resin Cements; C065742:Transbond; D017438:Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate