Evaluation of different flowable materials for bonding brackets.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant on the tooth after debonding of brackets bonded with a traditional orthodontic resin (Transbond XT), a flowable composite (X-Flow), a flowable compomer (Dyract Flow) and a flowable giomer (Beautifil Flow).


METHODS
105 extracted human premolars were used. They were divided into four groups: (1) Transbond XT, (2) X-Flow, (3) Dyract Flow, and (4) Beautifil Flow. Shear bond strength was measured using a universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 1 mm/minute. The adhesive remnant on the tooth after debonding was quantified using image analysis.


RESULTS
No significant differences were found between the shear bond strengths of the different groups evaluated (P > 0.05). Transbond XT left significantly more adhesive on the tooth than the three flowable materials, and among the flowable materials, X-Flow left significantly less adhesive than Beautifil Flow (P < 0.008).
Vicente
Ascensión
A
Orthodontic Teaching Unit, Dental Clinic, The University of Murcia, Hospital Morales Meseguer, 2nd Floor, C/. Marqués de los Vélez, s/n, 30008 Murcia, Spain. ascenvi@um.es
Bravo
Luis A
LA
D001641:Bicuspid; D020770:Compomers; D001840:Dental Bonding; D017005:Dental Debonding; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D019279:Resin Cements; D012212:Rheology; D033081:Shear Strength
D020770:Compomers; D005899:Glass Ionomer Cements; D019279:Resin Cements