|
|
||||||||
Scientific Section |
Department of Orthodontics, University Dental Hospital of Manchester, Higher Cambridge Street, Manchester, U.K.
Department of Orthodontics, St Luke's Hospital, Little Horton Lane, Bradford, U.K.
Sub-Unit for Medical Statistics, Centre for Health Services Research, 7175 Clarendon Rd, Leeds, U.K.
Division of Restorative Dentistry, Leeds Dental Institute, Clarendon Way, Leeds, UK
Abstract
A common reason for bond failure is moisture contamination. This study investigates the in vitro bond strength of brackets bonded using a new hydrophilic primer, designed to be insensitive to moisture, and compares it with a conventional primer. Using a standardized technique, the in vitro bond strength of brackets bonded with the hydrophilic primer was compared to identical brackets bonded with a conventional primer. Although designed to be moisture insensitive, the directions for use stipulate drying the teeth before bonding. Therefore, for the purposes of comparison with a conventional primer the experiment was conducted under dry conditions. The results were analysed using the Weibull distribution modelling.
The median bond strength with the hydrophilic primer (643 MPa, 95 per cent C.I. 769950) was significantly lower (P = 00001) than the conventional primer (871 MPa, 95 per cent C.I. 589759). The Weibull distribution modelling showed that brackets bonded with the hydrophilic primer were 396 times more at risk of failure (95 per cent C.I.: 239656; P <00001). The bond strength at which 5 per cent of the brackets failed was also lower for the hydrophilic primer.
The bond strengths obtained with the hydrophilic primer were significantly lower than with the conventional primer. Although the median bond strength values were promising, the laboratory results for this particular hydrophilic primer were disappointing when using the Weibull analysis, where the whole distribution of bond strength is taken into account.
Key words: Hydrophilic Primer, Moisture Insensitive Primer, Orthodontic Bonding, Weibull Analysis.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
A. Faltermeier, M. Behr, M. Rosentritt, C. Reicheneder, and D. Mussig An in vitro comparative assessment of different enamel contaminants during bracket bonding Eur J Orthod, December 1, 2007; 29(6): 559 - 563. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
A. Mavropoulos, A. Karamouzos, G. Kolokithas, and A. E. Athanasiou In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial J. Orthod., June 1, 2003; 30(2): 139 - 147. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
S. J. Littlewood, L. Mitchell, and D. C. Greenwood A Randomized Controlled Trial to Investigate Brackets Bonded with a Hydrophilic Primer J. Orthod., December 1, 2001; 28(4): 301 - 305. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |