IAO Article Library
Bonding Orthodontic Metal Brackets to Composite Restorations: An Evaluation of the Bonding Effectiveness of Two Adhesive Systems
Record ID: 545
DOI: http://doi.org/10.67782/ZSRH2566
ISSN: 1539-1450
Primary Author: Ebrahimi, Hossein
Additional Authors: Vaziri, Abbas Salehi, and Ghaffari, Hassanali
Affiliations: Department of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Shahed University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Abstract:
Objectives: Bracket bond failure is a common issue in orthodontics, especially with composite restorations. The shear bond strength of metal brackets that are bonded to composite surfaces using Single Bond 2 and Single Bond Universal Adhesive is compared in this study. Also, it evaluates the effects of surface preparation with diamond burs. Methods: In this experimental study, 48 composite specimens were prepared and randomly assigned into four groups (n = 12) based on adhesive type and whether surface preparation with a diamond bur was performed. MBT metal brackets were bonded to composite surfaces. Shear bond strength and failure patterns were evaluated after 50,000 thermocycling cycles. A stereomicroscope was used to determine the mode of failure and adhesive remnant index (ARI) score. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, two-way ANOVA, and the Kruskal-Wallis test. Results: The strength of the shear bond was significantly greater in Single Bond Universal Adhesive groups than in those treated with Single Bond 2 (P = 0.001). Bond strength did not significantly change after preparing the surface with a diamond bur (P = 0.913). The single bond universal groups had the most frequently observed Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score (score 4). Conclusions: Bonding orthodontic brackets to composite restorations is more effective with universal adhesives, which improve bond strength, reduce clinical chair time, and guarantee reliable bracket retention throughout treatment. Keywords: Bracket bond failure, Composite restoration, Orthodontic bracket, Shear bond strength, Universal adhesive. Background and aim: The tooth size discrepancy (TSD) is crucial in determining and predicting treatment outcomes. The Bolton analysis, which measures the mesiodistal width of the mandibular and maxillary teeth, is essential for this process. This study aims to evaluate the Bolton anterior and overall tooth size ratios and to analyze their association with various classes of dental malocclusion, as defined by Angle’s classification. Methods: In this retrospective cross-sectional study, 150 patients with complete permanent dentition and no dental anomalies were randomly selected. After excluding unsuitable casts, samples were divided into Class I, II, and III malocclusion groups. Anterior and overall Bolton ratios were measured and analyzed across groups, and gender differences were also evaluated. Results: The present study showed that skeletal Class III patients had significantly higher anterior Bolton ratios than Class II patients. However, this difference was not statistically significant in the CLI group, although it was greater. Although the differences in overall Bolton ratios between different malocclusion groups were not statistically significant. Statistical analysis showed that there was a weak correlation between these parameters and anterior Bolton ratios. About 30% of patients had significant anterior tooth size differences (more than 1 standard deviation from the Bolton standard). In this study, there was no significant difference in anterior and overall Bolton ratios between the male and female groups. Conclusion: This study revealed that skeletal Class III patients had a significantly higher anterior Bolton ratio than Class II patients. There was no significant difference in overall Bolton ratios between different malocclusion groups, and there was no significant difference in anterior and overall Bolton ratios between males and females in general.
Bibliography:
1. Millett DT, Mandall NA, Mattick RC, Hickman J, Glenny AM. Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2(2):Cd008236. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD008236.pub3.
2. Mandall NA, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV, Mattick RC, Millett DT, Worthington HV. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;4(4):Cd002282. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD002282.pub2.
3. Shalini S, Jha A, Kashyap P, Gupta P, Rajbhoj S, Bhandari S. A Comparison of the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Different Orthodontic Adhesives. Cureus. 2023;15(5):e39115. doi:10.7759/cureus.39115.
4. Insee K, Boonyanitchayakul N, Temprasert C, Klaisiri A. Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets to Resin-Infiltrated Enamel. Eur J Gen Dent. 2025;14(02):136-41.
5. Grazioli G, Hardan L, Bourgi R, Nakanishi L, Amm E, Zarow M, et al. Residual Adhesive Removal Methods for Rebonding of Debonded Orthodontic Metal Brackets: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Materials. 2021;14(20):6120.
6. Quinty O, Antonarakis GS, Kiliaridis S, Mavropoulos A. Factors Related to Bracket Bond Failure during Orthodontic Treatment: A Single-Centre Single-Operator Study. Dent J. 2024;12(10):300.
7. Jakavičė R, Kubiliūtė K, Smailienė D. Bracket Bond Failures: Incidence and Association with Different Risk Factors—A Retrospective Study. IJERPH. 2023;20(5):4452.
8. Alzainal AH, Majud AS, Al-Ani AM, Mageet AO. Orthodontic Bonding: Review of the Literature. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:8874909. doi:10.1155/2020/8874909.
9. Zawawi RN, Almosa NA. Assessment of enamel surface roughness and hardness with metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets using different etching and adhesive systems: An in vitro study. Saudi Dent J. 2023;35(6):641-50. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.05.015.
10. Cadenaro M, Josic U, Maravić T, Mazzitelli C, Marchesi G, Mancuso E, et al. Progress in dental adhesive materials. J Dent Res. 2023;102(3):254-62.
11. Sayed ME. Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Aesthetic Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Aged Composite Restorative Resin Materials. Polymers. 2025;17(5):621.
12. Burns A, Hughes A, O’Sullivan M. Orthodontic bonding in special circumstances. British Dental Journal. 2024;237(5):400-6. doi:10.1038/s41415-024-7791-z.
13. Karandish M. Relevance of Micro-leakage to Orthodontic Bonding - a Review. J Dent Biomater. 2016;3(3):254-60.
14. Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick RC, Hickman J, Mandall NA. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;10(10):Cd004485. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004485.pub4.
15. Fraga MAA, de Souza DFRK, Garfias CSY, Correr AB, Teixeira LP, Malacarne-Zanon J. Effect of extended application time of universal adhesives on bond strength of brackets and enamel integrity. Res Soc Dev. 2021;10(13):e199101320832-e.
16. Proença MAM, da Silva KTL, Costa ESA, Carvalho EM, Bauer J, Carvalho CN. Shear Strength of Brackets Bonded with Universal Adhesive Containing 10-MDP after 20,000 Thermal Cycles. Int J Dent. 2020;2020:4265601. doi:10.1155/2020/4265601.
17. Ebrahimi H, Amiri Z, Besharati Zadeh P, Salehi Vaziri A. Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Two Bonding Systems on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Galen Medical Journal. 2025;14(SP1):e3940. doi:10.31661/gmj.v14iSP1.3940.
18. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85(4):333-40. doi:10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
19. Rodríguez-Chávez JA, Flores-Ruiz HM, Flores-Ledesma A, García-Pérez A, Bazán-Diaz L. Scanning electron microscopy analysis of metallic and aesthetic bracket meshes before and after debonding. Korean J Orthod. 2025;55(1):15-25. doi:10.4041/kjod24.073.
20. Cacciafesta V. Bonding problems related to adult reconstructed dentitions. Adult Orthodontics. 2022:181-215.
21. Bechikh A, Klinkova O, Maalej Y, Tawfiq I, Nasri R. Effect of dry abrasion treatments on composite surface quality and bonded joints shear strength. Int J Adhes. 2022;113:103058. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijadhadh.2021.103058.
22. Mahesh J, Dolly P. Challenges for Orthodontic Bonding in Modern Times; an Overview. J Dent Med Sci. 2021;20(7):05-8.
23. Perković V, Šimunović Aničić M, Lughi V, Pozzan L, Meštrović S, Turco G. Correlation of Shear Bond Strength and Degree of Conversion in Conventional and Self-Adhesive Systems Used in Orthodontic Bonding Procedures. Biomedicines. 2023;11(5):1252.
24. Ugurlu M, Buyukcavus MH. The performance of universal adhesives on orthodontic bracket bonding. Eur J Gen Dent. 2021;10(01):019-24.
25. Yin H, Kwon S, Chung SH, Kim RJY. Performance of universal adhesives in composite resin repair. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022(1):7663490.
26. Tsujimoto A, Barkmeier WW, Takamizawa T, Wilwerding TM, Latta MA, Miyazaki M. Interfacial Characteristics and Bond Durability of Universal Adhesive to Various Substrates. Oper Dent. 2017;42(2):E59-e70. doi:10.2341/15-353-l.
27. Iliev G, Hardan L, Kassis C, Bourgi R, Cuevas-Suárez CE, Lukomska-Szymanska M, et al. Shelf Life and Storage Conditions of Universal Adhesives: A Literature Review. Polymers. 2021;13(16):2708.
28. Montoya C, Babariya M, Ogwo C, Querido W, Patel JS, Melo MA, et al. Synergistic effects of bacteria, enzymes, and cyclic mechanical stresses on the bond strength of composite restorations. Biomater Adv. 2025;166:214049. doi:10.1016/j.bioadv.2024.214049.
29. Hadilou M, Dolatabadi A, Ghojazadeh M, Hosseinifard H, Alizadeh Oskuee P, Pournaghi Azar F. Effect of Different Surface Treatments on the Long-Term Repair Bond Strength of Aged Methacrylate-Based Resin Composite Restorations: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Biomed Res Int. 2022;2022:7708643. doi:10.1155/2022/7708643.
30. Fathpour K, Nili Ahmadabadi M, Atash R, Fathi AH. Effect of Different Surface Treatment Methods on the Shear Bond Strength of Resin Composite/Zirconia for Intra-oral Repair of Zirconia Restorations. Eur J Dent. 2023;17(3):809-17. doi:10.1055/s-0042-1756475.
31. Al Habdan AH, Al Rabiah R, Al Busayes R. Shear bond strength of acid and laser conditioned enamel and dentine to composite resin restorations: An in vitro study. Clin Exp Dent Res. 2021;7(3):331-7. doi:10.1002/cre2.409.
32. Farhadifard H, Rezaei-Soufi L, Farhadian M, Shokouhi P. Effect of different surface treatments on shear bond strength of ceramic brackets to old composite. Biomater Res. 2020;24(1):20. doi:10.1186/s40824-020-00199-y.
33. Michelotti G, Niedzwiecki M, Bidjan D, Dieckmann P, Deari S, Attin T, et al. Silane Effect of Universal Adhesive on the Composite–Composite Repair Bond Strength after Different Surface Pretreatments. Polymers. 2020;12(4):950.
34. Stape THS, Tulkki O, Salim IA, Jamal KN, Mutluay MM, Tezvergil-Mutluay A. Composite repair: On the fatigue strength of universal adhesives. Dent Mater. 2022;38(2):231-41. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dental.2021.12.003.
35. Torkani MAM, Nezhad MHR, Goodarzi A, Taram S. The Effect of Using Composite Primers, Silane and Surface Roughening on the Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets bonded to Old Composites. Avicenna Journal of Dental Research. 2022;14(3):107-12.
36. Sharma S, Pandit SK, Das R, Sinha M, Sahu R, Trivedi P. Comparison of Bond Strength of Metal and Ceramic Brackets with or without Primer. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2022;14(Suppl 1):S225-S8. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_143_22.
37. Dirie AR, Hajeer MY, Dabbas J, Al-Ibrahim HM. Evaluation of sandblasting with acid etching versus acid etching alone in the preparation of enamel for rebonding orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study and a randomized controlled trial. JWFO. 2021;10(1):3-8. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2020.12.001.