title: In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a chemically-cured composite resin (Unite, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA) in conjunction with a special moisture-resistant primer (Transbond MIP, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, California, USA); and a fluoride-releasing light-cured compomer (Assure, Reliance Orthodontic Products, Inc., Itasca, Illinois, USA).
  
  
  METHODS
  Randomized controlled clinical trial using the 'split-mouth' technique.
  
  
  METHODS
  Department of Orthodontics, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
  
  
  METHODS
  Twenty-five consecutively started patients (13 females and 12 males) requiring fixed appliance orthodontic treatment.
  
  
  METHODS
  Four-hundred-and-thirty-six stainless steel brackets bonded to all teeth except molars using two different moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems.
  
  
  METHODS
  Bond failure rates during a period of 9 months were estimated for each adhesive system and the corresponding bracket survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan- Meier product-limit estimate. Bracket survival distributions with respect to adhesive material, tooth location, patient's gender and operator, were then compared by means of a log-rank test. Bond failure interface was determined using the Adhesive Remnant Index.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Assure recorded a higher bond failure rate (13.8 per cent) than Unite & MIP (7.3 per cent). The corresponding bracket survival curves were found to be significantly different (P < 0.05). Premolars exhibited higher bond failures than incisors and canines (P < 0.001), while half (49.8 per cent) of the total bond failures occurred during the first 2 months of treatment. The predominant mode of failure was within the bonding material.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The new moisture-resistant adhesive systems under study were found to be clinically efficient, though Assure exhibited a significantly higher bond failure rate than Unite and Transbond MIP. The higher frequency of adhesive failures observed with Assure might indicate a possible weak point at the adhesive-bracket interface.
authors.affiliation: School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Mavropoulos
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Karamouzos
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Kolokithas
authors.forename: A E
authors.initials: AE
authors.lastname: Athanasiou
mesh_terms: D000269:Adhesives / Q000737:chemistry; D000293:Adolescent; D002648:Child; D020770:Compomers / Q000737:chemistry; D001840:Dental Bonding; D000431:Ethanol / Q000737:chemistry; D005260:Female; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D008297:Male; D008689:Methacrylates / Q000737:chemistry; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry*; D012822:Silicon Dioxide / Q000737:chemistry; D013193:Stainless Steel; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D016019:Survival Analysis; D013997:Time Factors; D014070:Tooth
chemical_list: D000269:Adhesives; C438705:Assure cement; D020770:Compomers; D008689:Methacrylates; D019279:Resin Cements; C458821:Transbond moisture-insensitive primer; D013193:Stainless Steel; D000431:Ethanol; D012822:Silicon Dioxide; C073908:Unite resin