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
. 2014 Nov 28:10:51.
doi: 10.1186/1746-160X-10-51.

Shear bond strength of different retainer wires and bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process

Claudia Reicheneder, Bernd Hofrichter, Andreas Faltermeier, Peter Proff, Carsten Lippold  1 , Christian Kirschneck
Affiliations

Shear bond strength of different retainer wires and bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process

Claudia Reicheneder et al. Head Face Med. .

Abstract

Introduction: We aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of three different retainer wires and three different bonding adhesives in consideration of the pretreatment process of enamel surface sandblasting.

Methods: 400 extracted bovine incisors were divided into 10 groups of 20 paired specimens each. 10 specimens of each group were pretreated by enamel sandblasting. The retainer wires Bond-A-Braid™, GAC-Wildcat®-Twistflex and everStick®ORTHO were bonded to the teeth with the adhesives Transbond™-LR, Tetric-EvoFlow™ and Stick®FLOW and then debonded measuring the SBS.

Results: While sandblasting generally increased SBS for all tested combinations, the retainer wires bonded with Transbond™-LR showed the highest SBS both with and without prior sandblasting. Significantly lower SBS were found for Tetric-EvoFlow™ that were comparable to those for everStick®ORTHO.

Conclusions: Pretreatment of enamel surfaces by sandblasting increased the SBS of all retainer-wires. Transbond™-LR showed the best results compared to Tetric-EvoFlow™ and everStick®ORTHO, while all combinations used provided sufficient bonding strengths for clinical use.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental design for testing of shear bond strength (SBS). The force applied by the universal testing machine Instron 5965 (Instron, Pfungstadt, Germany) was directed along the occluso-apical axis of the incisors to simulate the initial bite force.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Schematic drawing of experimental design. a view from the side; b view from oral.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Shear bond strengths (SBS) of the retainer-adhesive-combinations tested with and without prior sandblasting. Boxplots show median and interquartile range while whiskers denote the data range. ° outliers (>1.5 x IQR beyond upper/lower quartile); * extreme values (>3 x IQR beyond upper/lower quartile).
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Little RM, Wallen TR, Riedel RA. Stability and relapse of mandibular anterior alignment-first premolar extraction cases treated by traditional edgewise orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1981;80:349–365. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(81)90171-8. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Little RM. Stability and relapse of dental arch alignment. Br J Orthod. 1990;7:235–241. doi: 10.1179/bjo.17.3.235. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cobourne MT, DiBiase AT. Handbook of Orthodontics. Edinburgh, New York: Mosby; 2009.
    1. Zachrisson BU. Clinical experience with direct-bonded orthodontic retainers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1977;71:440–448. doi: 10.1016/0002-9416(77)90247-0. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH, Vogels DS. JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures. Part 1. Results and trends. J Clin Orthod. 1996;30:615–629. - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources