Effect of using different component combinations for orthodontic bracket bonding with self-etch primers.

Purpose: To evaluate bonding quality for orthodontic bracket bonding with different component combinations of self-etch primers in vitro.

Methods: Metallic brackets were bonded to bovine lower incisors and assigned to groups. Group 1: comparison of self-etch (Transbond™ Plus, 3M™ Unitek, Neuss, Germany, n = 30; BrackFix® primer SE, VOCO®, Cuxhaven, Germany, n = 20) and etch-and-rinse bonding systems (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20); group 2: comparison of different self-etch primer (Transbond™ Plus; BrackFix® primer SE) and adhesive (Transbond™ XT, n = 20; BrackFix®, n = 20) product combinations; group 3: testing cyclic fatigue bond strength of self-etch bonding systems (Transbond™ Plus, n = 20; BrackFix® primer SE, n = 20). All teeth were tested for shear bond strength according to the DIN-13990 standard, the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and enamel fractures were determined microscopically (10 × magnification).

Results: The mean shear bond strength of the self-etch (Transbond™ Plus: 16.38 ± 3.68 MPa; BrackFix® primer SE: 16.24 ± 1.73 MPa) and etch-and-rinse bonding systems (Transbond™ XT: 18.45 ± 2.56 MPa; BrackFix®: 17 ± 5.2 MPa) were of a clinically adequate order of magnitude (≥ 6-10 MPa) and were not statistically different. The component combination BrackFix® primer SE/Transbond™ XT adhesive led to a significantly lower shear bond strength (11.99 ± 3.68 MPa). There were no significant differences between static and fatigue shear bond strengths of self-etch bonding systems. Mean ARI scores mostly ranged between 4 and 5. The combination of the self-etch primer Transbond™ Plus with the BrackFix® adhesive led to a significantly increased enamel fracture rate.

Conclusions: Based on the present findings bond strength of self-etch primers was equal to etch-and-rinse primers for bracket bonding. Combining different self-etch bonding systems might alter the clinical performance.