Comparison of Self-Etch Primers with Conventional Acid Etching System on Orthodontic Brackets

Abstract

Introduction: The self-etching primer system consists of etchant and primer dispersed in a single unit. The etching and priming are merged as a single step leading to fewer stages in bonding procedure and reduction in the number of steps that also reduces the chance of introduction of error, resulting in saving time for the clinician. It also results in smaller extent of enamel decalcification.

Aim: To compare the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of orthodontic bracket bonded with Self-Etch Primers (SEP) and conventional acid etching system and to study the surface appearance of teeth after debonding; etching with conventional acid etch and self-etch priming, using stereomicroscope.

Materials and methods: Five Groups (n=20) were created randomly from a total of 100 extracted premolars. In a control Group A, etching of enamel was done with 37% phosphoric acid and bonding of stainless steel brackets with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, California). Enamel conditioning in left over four Groups was done with self-etching primers and adhesives as follows: Group B-Transbond Plus (3M Unitek), Group C Xeno V+ (Dentsply), Group D-G-Bond (GC), Group E-One-Coat (Coltene). The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was also evaluated. Additionally, the surface roughness using profilometer were observed.

Results: Mean SBS of Group A was 18.26±7.5MPa, Group B was 10.93±4.02MPa, Group C was 6.88±2.91MPa while of Group D was 7.78±4.13MPa and Group E was 10.39±5.22MPa respectively. In conventional group ARI scores shows that over half of the adhesive was remaining on the surface of tooth (score 1 to 3). In self-etching primer groups ARI scores show that there was no or minor amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of tooth (score 4 and 5). SEP produces a lesser surface roughness on the enamel than conventional etching. However, statistical analysis shows significant correlation (p<0.001) of bond strength with surface roughness of enamel.

Conclusion: All groups might show clinically useful SBS values and Transbond XT can be successfully used for bracket bonding after enamel conditioning with any of the SEPs tested. The SEPs used in Groups C (Xeno V+) and D (G-Bond) have significantly lowered SBS. Although, the values might still be clinically acceptable.

Keywords: Adhesive remnant index; Bonding; Universal testing machine.

[Table/Fig-1]:

Self etching primer.

[Table/Fig-2]:

Universal testing machine (Star Testing Systems, India. Model No. STS 248).

[Table/Fig-3]:

Knife-edged blade was used to apply load at the bracket adhesive interface.