A long-term comparison of the failure rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with either a self-etching primer (SEP) or conventional etch and primer (AE).
Design
Prospective randomized controlled clinical trial.
Setting
UK district general hospital with one operator, 2003–6.
Participants
Hospital waiting list patients needing fixed appliances (n=60).
Method
Experimental (SEP) group patients (n=30) received pre-adjusted edgewise brackets (n=438) bonded with Transbond Plus following manufacturer's instructions. Control (AE) group patients (n=30, brackets n=433) were bonded using a 15-second conventional etch and primer (Transbond XT). In both groups brackets were light-cured for 20 seconds. First-time bond failures were recorded with the time of failure. Bracket bonding time was recorded. All patients were followed to the end or discontinuation of treatment.
Results
Bracket failure rates: SEP=4.8%, AE=3.5%, P=0.793. Mean placement time per bracket (seconds): SEP=75.5 (±6.7; 95% CI=72.9, 78.0), AE=97.7 (±9.1; 95% CI=94.3, 101.2) P=0.000.
Conclusion
There was no difference in the failure rates of brackets bonded with either Transbond Plus SEP or conventional AE using Transbond XT paste. Bonding with SEP was significantly faster than using conventional AE.
BisharaSE, OonsombatC, SolimanMM, WarrenJJ, LaffoonJF, AjlouniRComparison of bonding time and shear bond strength between a conventional and a new integrated bonding system. Angle Orthod2005; 75: 237–42.
2.
BisharaSE, OonsombatC, AjlouniR, DenchyGThe effect of saliva contamination on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets when using a self-etch primer. Angle Orthod2002; 72: 554–57.
3.
ZeppieriIL, ChungCH, ManteFKEffect of saliva on shear bond strength of an orthodontic adhesive used with moisture-insensitive and self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2003; 124: 414–19.
4.
Cal-NetoJP, MiguelJA. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of the bonding mechanism of a self-etching primer on enamel. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 132–36.
MillerRLaboratory and clinical evaluation of a self-etching primer. J Clin Orthod2001; 35: 42–45.
7.
PandisN, EliadesTA comparative in vivo assessment of the long-term failure rate of 2 self-etching primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2005; 128: 96–98.
8.
PandisN, PolychronopoulouA, EliadesTFailure rate of self-ligating and edgewise brackets with conventional acid etching and a self-etching primer: a prospective in vivo study. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 119–22.
9.
AsgariS, SalasA, EnglishJ, PowersJClinical evaluation of bond failure rates with a new self-etching primer. J Clin Orthod2002; 36: 687–89.
10.
IrelandAJ, KnightH, SheriffMAn in vivo investigation into bond failure rates with a new self-etching primer system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2003; 124: 323–26.
11.
dos SantosJE, QuiocaJ, LoguercioAD, ReisA.Six-month bracket survival with a self-etch adhesive. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 863–68.
12.
AljubouriYD, MillettDT, GilmourWHSix and 12 months’ evaluation of a self-etching primer versus two-stage etch and prime for orthodontic bonding: a randomized clinical trial. Eur J Orthod2004; 26: 565–71.
13.
MurfittPG, QuickAN, SwainMV, HerbisonGPA randomised clinical trial to investigate bond failure rates using a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod2006; 28: 444–49.
HouseK, IrelandA, SherriffMAn investigation into the use of a single component self-etching adhesive system for orthodontic bonding: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Orthod2006; 33: 38–44.
16.
BarryGRA clinical investigation of the effects of omission of pumice prophylaxis on band and bond failure. Br J Orthod1995; 22: 245–48.
17.
BurgessAM, SheriffM, IrelandAJSelf-etching primers: is prophylactic pumicing necessary? A randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod2006; 76: 114–18.
18.
BisharaSE, von WaldL, LaffoonJF, WarrenJJ. Effect of a self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2001; 119: 621–24.
19.
BisharaSE, AjlouniR, LaffoonJF, WarrenJJEffect of a fluoride-releasing self-etch acidic primer on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod2002; 72: 199–202.
20.
GrubisaHSI, HeoG, RaboudD, GloverKE, MajorPWAn evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths achieved with self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2004; 126: 213–19.
21.
RajagopalR, PadmanabhanS, GnanamaniJA comparison of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of conventional, moisture-insensitive, and self-etching primers in vitro. Angle Orthod2004; 74: 264–68.
22.
DormineyJC, DunnWJ, TaloumisLJShear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a modified 1-step etchant-and-primer technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2003; 124: 410–13.
23.
ArnoldRW, CombeEC, WarfordJHBonding of stainless steel brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop2002; 122: 274–76.
24.
EliadesT, BrantleyWAThe inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod2000; 22: 13–23.
25.
BanksPA, RichmondSEnamel sealants: a clinical evaluation of their value during fixed appliance therapy. Eur J Orthod1994; 16: 19–25.
26.
GorelickL, GeigerAM, GwinnettAJImplications of the failure rates of bonded brackets and eyelets: a clinical study. Am J Orthod1984; 86: 403–6.
27.
ÅrtunJ, BerglandS.Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid etch enamel pre-treatment. Am J Orthod1984; 85: 333–40.
28.
BanksPABond failure rates – mini-twin versus standard brackets. British Orthodontic Society Clinical Effectiveness Working Party Newsletter2003; 16: 4.
29.
SunnaS, RockWPClinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod1998; 25: 283–87.
