Comparison of the failure rate, bonding time and ARI score of two orthodontic bonding systems: Self-Etch Primer and Conventional Etching Primer: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate the failure incidence of brackets with at least six months follow-up between self-etch primer and conventional etch/primer, as well as to investigate the clinical duration of the bonding process and the amount of adhesive remnant index (ARI).

METHODS

Electronic search was conducted in databases including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, ClinicalTrials.gov, and ICTRP (International Clinical Trials Registry Platform). The electronic search targeted only randomized clinical trials and was limited from January 2000 to June 2021. Delphi list is used to evaluate the risk of bias and Stata Version14.2 software was used. This systematic review was conducted according to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and recorded on the Ethics Committee of Research Institute of Dental Sciences, SBMU (IR.SBMU.DRC.REC.1398.240).

RESULTS

Out of 2288 extracted studies, 30 of them entered the full-text evaluation process. According to the inclusion criteria, 15 studies entered this systematic review. Containing 607 participants and 10,563 brackets/teeth. All the included studies were of randomized clinical trials (RCT) design with either parallel or split-mouth design. Comparing the two groups, the risk difference effect (RD)=0.007 CI 95% (-0.004,0.018) indicated a neglectable difference in the risk of bracket failure during treatment between the two groups. The index I²=53.9% indicated moderate heterogeneity in the results. Furthermore, the P-value=0.007 indicated statistical insignificance between the two interventions in terms of failure rate. The clinical duration of bonding time analysis were equal to SMD _Cohen=-2.67 CI95% (-3.49, -1.85), which indicated a statistically significant reduction in clinical process time, using the self-etch primer. Data synthesis for adhesive remnant index could not be conducted due to heterogeneity among included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no difference between the self-etch primer and conventional etch/primer in bracket debonding at a medium level of evidence, However, there was statistically significant reduction in clinical bonding time using self-etch primer.

Effect of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG Lasers on Ceramic Bracket Debonding from Composite Blocks

Objectives:

This study aimed to assess the effect of erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) and erbium, chromium: yttrium, scandium, gallium, garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) lasers on the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets debonding from the surface of composite blocks.

Materials and Methods:

Thirty-six composite blocks were fabricated using Filtek Z250 light-cure composite. Block surfaces were etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds and then rinsed with water for 20 seconds and dried. Maxillary right central incisor ceramic orthodontic brackets were bonded to the surfaces of composite blocks using Transbond XT adhesive and were cured for 40 seconds. Twelve samples were irradiated with Er:YAG laser, while 12 samples were irradiated with Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and the brackets were then debonded using a universal testing machine. Twelve samples served as controls (debonding using the universal testing machine without using a laser). The adhesive remnant index (ARI) score and bracket or composite cracks were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for the comparison of the three groups. Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare the ARI scores.

Results:

The mean SBS was 17.01±5.22 MPa with Er:YAG laser, 18.03±6.46 MPa with Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and 16.61±6.73 MPa in the control group; the difference of the three groups was not significant (P=0.835). The difference in the ARI scores and enamel and composite cracks was not significant either (P>0.05).

Conclusion:

This study did not show any reduction in the bond strength of ceramic bracket to composite blocks after Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation.

Evaluation of the Shear Bond Strength and Adhesive Remnant Index in Debonding of Stainless Steel Brackets Assisted with Nd:YAG Laser Irradiation

Objectives:

The purpose was to compare shear bond strength (SBS), pulp temperature, and adhesive remnant index (ARI) in debonding of stainless steel brackets from enamel surface using neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Nd:YAG) laser versus the conventional debonding method.

Materials and Methods:

Forty-eight extracted premolars were bonded to stainless steel brackets. The samples were divided into three experimental groups and one control group. In the first three groups, Nd:YAG laser was used for debonding with the power of 1, 1.5, and 2 W, respectively, for 10 seconds. The SBS and ARI of the samples were assessed. Pulp temperature was recorded before and after irradiation. Two samples from each group were used for determining enamel morphology after debonding using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Results:

The mean SBS in the groups was 33.05, 28.69, 24.37, and 31.53 MPa, respectively, with no statistically significant differences (P=0.205). Significant differences in post-irradiation temperature were noted among the lased groups (P=0.000). Debonding mainly occurred at the adhesive-enamel interface in the 1-W laser and control groups and at the bracket-adhesive interface in the 1.5-W and 2-W laser groups. Enamel structure was amorphous and irregular following laser irradiation.

Conclusion:

Based on the results of this study, the use of Nd:YAG laser could not significantly affect the SBS. Therefore, this laser would not be suitable for debonding of metal brackets. The use of a 2-W laser could significantly raise the pulpal temperature. Nd:YAG laser renders a more heterogeneous enamel morphology compared to conventional debonding methods.

Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Zirconium Crowns

Background

An increasing demand for esthetic restorations has resulted in an increased use of all-ceramic restorations, such as zirconium. However, one of the challenges the orthodontist must be willing to face is how to increase bond strength between the brackets and various ceramic restorations.Bond strength can beaffected bybracket type, by the material that bracketsaremade of, and their base surface design or retention mode.

Material and methods

Twenty samples/semi-crowns of all-zirconium ceramic, on which orthodontic brackets were bonded, 10 metallic and 10 ceramic polycrystalline brackets, were prepared for this research. SBS has been testedby Universal Testing Machine, with a load applied using a knife edged rod moving at a fixed rate of 1 mm/min, until failure occurred. The force required to debond the brackets was recorded in Newton, then SBS was calculated to MPa. In addition, the samples were analyzed using a digital camera magnifier to determine Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Statistical data were processed using t-test, and the level of significance was set at α = 0.05.

Results

Higher shear bond strength values were observed in metallic brackets bonded to zirconium crowns compared tothoseof ceramic brackets, with a significant difference. During the test, two of the ceramic brackets were partially or totally damaged.

Conclusion

Metallic brackets, compared to ceramic polycrystalline brackets, seemed tocreate stronger adhesion with all-zirconium surfaces due to their better retention mode. Also, ceramic brackets showed higher fragility during debonding.

Enamel surface roughness after debonding of orthodontic brackets and various clean-up techniques

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate enamel roughness after adhesive removal using different burs and an Er:YAG laser.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The buccal surfaces of forty human premolars were sealed by two layers of nail varnish, except for a circular area of 3 mm in diameter on the middle third. The enamel surfaces were initially subjected to profilometry analysis and four parameters of surface irregularity (Ra, Rq, Rt and Rz) were recorded. Following bracket bonding and debonding, adhesive remnants were removed by tungsten carbide burs in low- or high- speed handpieces (group 1 and 2, respectively), an ultrafine diamond bur (group 3) or an Er:YAG laser (250 mJ, long pulse, 4 Hz) (group 4), and surface roughness parameters were measured again. Then, the buccal surfaces were polished and the third profilometry measurements were performed.

RESULTS

The specimens that were cleaned with a low speed tungsten carbide bur showed no significant difference in surface irregularity between the different treatment stages (p>0.05). Surface roughness increased significantly after clean-up with the diamond bur and the Er:YAG laser (p<0.01). In comparison between groups, adhesive removal with tungsten carbide burs at slow- or high-speed handpieces produced the lowest, while enamel clean-up with the Er:YAG laser caused the highest values of roughness measurements (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Under the study conditions, application of the ultrafine diamond bur or the Er:YAG laser caused irreversible enamel damage on tooth surface, and thus these methods could not be recommended for removing adhesive remnants after debonding of orthodontic brackets.