Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2010 Jan;80(1):195-200.
doi: 10.2319/033007-155.1.

Flowable composites for bonding orthodontic retainers

Sama Tabrizi  1 , Elio Salemis, Serdar Usumez
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Flowable composites for bonding orthodontic retainers

Sama Tabrizi et al. Angle Orthod. 2010 Jan.

Abstract

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that there are no statistically significant differences between flowables and an orthodontic adhesive tested in terms of shear bond strength (SBS) and pullout resistance.

Materials and methods: To test the SBS of Light Bond, FlowTain, Filtek Supreme, and Tetric Flow were applied to the enamel surfaces of 15 teeth. Using matrices for application, each composite material was cured for 40 seconds and subjected to SBS testing. To test pullout resistance, 15 samples were prepared for each composite in which a wire was embedded; then the composite was cured for 40 seconds. Later, the ends of the wire were drawn up and tensile stress was applied until the resin failed. Findings were analyzed using an ANOVA and a Tukey HSD test.

Results: The SBS values for Light Bond, FlowTain, Filtek Supreme, and Tetric Flow were 19.0 +/- 10.9, 14.7 +/- 9.3, 22.4 +/- 16.3, and 16.8 +/- 11.8 MPa, respectively, and mean pullout values were 42.2 +/- 13.0, 24.0 +/- 6.9, 26.3 +/- 9.4, and 33.8 +/- 18.0 N, respectively. No statistically significant differences were found among the groups in terms of SBS (P > .05). On the other hand, Light Bond yielded significantly higher pullout values compared with the flowables Filtek Supreme and Flow-Tain (P < .01). However, there were no significant differences among the pullout values of flowables, nor between Light Bond and Tetric Flow (P > .05).

Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. Light Bond yielded significantly higher pullout values compared with the flowables Filtek Supreme and FlowTain. However, flowable composites provided satisfactory SBS and wire pullout values, comparable to a standard orthodontic resin, and therefore can be used as an alternative for direct bonding of lingual retainers.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preparation of the composite buildup on an enamel surface using the Ultradent matrix. (a) Matrix is adapted to the enamel surface. (b) Composite is packed into the mold (arrow). (c) Light curing. (d) Matrix is removed and the specimen is ready for testing.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Test setup used to determine the resistance of composites to pulling out the wire.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Buonocore M. G. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34:849–853. - PubMed
    1. Kneirim R. W. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod. 1973;43:218–219. - PubMed
    1. Zachrisson B. U. Third-generation mandibular bonded lingual 3-3 retainer. J Clin Orthod. 1995;29:39–48. - PubMed
    1. Usumez S, Buyukyilmaz T, Karaman A. Effect of a fast halogen and a plasma arc light on the surface hardness of orthodontic adhesives for lingual retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:641–648. - PubMed
    1. Usumez S, Buyukyilmaz T, Karaman A. I, Gunduz B. Degree of conversion of two lingual retainer adhesives cured with different light sources. Eur J Orthod. 2005;27:173–179. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources