Browse by author
Lookup NU author(s): Dr Ross Hobson, Professor John McCabe, Dr Stephen Hogg
Full text for this publication is not currently held within this repository. Alternative links are provided below where available.
Fixed appliance therapy in orthodontics relies on the effective bonding of brackets to surface enamel. Bracket de-bonding during treatment is both inconvenient and costly to both dentist and patient. Factors which control the efficacy of the bond are not fully understood. For example, there has never been a study to determine the efficacy of bonding to different teeth in the dentition. The aim of this study was to investigate the possible differences in bond strength to acid etched enamel on the different teeth of the dentition. Methods: Two hundred and forty extracted sound human teeth were collected from white Caucasian subjects between the age of 10 and 22 years. Approximately 20 teeth of each tooth type were bonded using a standard acid etch technique with 'A company' stainless steel brackets using a light cured composite (Transbond, 3M Unitek). Shear bond strength (24 h) was measured using an Instron testing machine. Results: Tooth type was found to have a significant effect on bond strength (p < 0.001). The greatest mean bond strength was found on the lower first molar teeth, and the lowest on the upper first molar teeth. In the upper arch, bond strength was greater on anterior teeth than posterior teeth (p < 0.001). In the lower arch bond strength was weaker on anterior teeth than posterior teeth (p < 0.001). Significance: The results have profound implications for bond strength testing of dental composites to enamel as well as to the expectations of bond reliability in orthodontic therapy. The findings suggest that, in order to achieve meaningful comparisons, enamel bond strength measurements should be made using the same tooth type, or that appropriate stratification of groups of test teeth should be used. These findings may also explain, in part, variability in enamel bonding efficacy despite the best efforts of the dental practitioner. © 2001 Academy of Dental Materials. Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Author(s): Hogg SD; McCabe JF; Hobson RS
Publication type: Article
Publication status: Published
Journal: Dental Materials
Year: 2001
Volume: 17
Issue: 2
Pages: 184-189
ISSN (print): 0109-5641
ISSN (electronic):
Publisher: Elsevier
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00068-3
DOI: 10.1016/S0109-5641(00)00068-3
PubMed id: 11163390
Altmetrics provided by Altmetric
