<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><sec><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the shear bond strength of different fixed retainer wire diameters bonded using a conventional composite resin or a specific retainer composite.</p></sec><sec><h3>Materials and methods</h3><p>One-hundred-and-twenty extracted human premolar teeth were divided into six groups. After conventional acid etching with a 37% phosphoric acid gel for 30 seconds, twist flex wires of various diameters (0.0175″, 0.0215″, 0.032″) were bonded as fixed retainers. Conventional bracket adhesive (Filtek Z250) or retainer specific adhesives (Transbond LR) were used. After curing, the specimens were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C and, thereafter, subjected to 500 thermal cycles. The specimens were then debonded using a Universal Instron machine. The site of failure was recorded for each specimen and the shear bond strength calculated. Statistical analyses were provided using a Chi-square test for failure site and a two-way ANOVA test to assess shear bond strength.</p></sec><sec><h3>Results</h3><p>The site of failure was predominantly at the wire composite interface in all groups. The specific retainer composite showed a significantly higher shear bond strength compared with conventional composite (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the three wire diameters (<italic>p</italic> &lt; 0.001); the 0.0215” wire had the highest shear bond strength, whereas the 0.032” wire had the least shear bond strength.</p></sec><sec><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>The site of failure was unrelated to wire diameter or adhesive. The optimal combination to maximise the bond strength of fixed retainers appeared to be a specific retainer adhesive and a wire diameter of 0.0215″.</p></sec></abstract>

ObjectiveTo compare the shear bond strength of different fixed retainer wire diameters bonded using a conventional composite resin or a specific retainer composite.Materials and methodsOne-hundred-and-twenty extracted human premolar teeth were divided into six groups. After conventional acid etching with a 37% phosphoric acid gel for 30 seconds, twist flex wires of various diameters (0.0175″, 0.0215″, 0.032″) were bonded as fixed retainers. Conventional bracket adhesive (Filtek Z250) or retainer specific adhesives (Transbond LR) were used. After curing, the specimens were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C and, thereafter, subjected to 500 thermal cycles. The specimens were then debonded using a Universal Instron machine. The site of failure was recorded for each specimen and the shear bond strength calculated. Statistical analyses were provided using a Chi-square test for failure site and a two-way ANOVA test to assess shear bond strength.ResultsThe site of failure was predominantly at the wire composite interface in all groups. The specific retainer composite showed a significantly higher shear bond strength compared with conventional composite (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the three wire diameters (p < 0.001); the 0.0215” wire had the highest shear bond strength, whereas the 0.032” wire had the least shear bond strength.ConclusionsThe site of failure was unrelated to wire diameter or adhesive. The optimal combination to maximise the bond strength of fixed retainers appeared to be a specific retainer adhesive and a wire diameter of 0.0215″.

Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers

Jordan University of Science and Technology

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

{"article-title":"Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers"}

ObjectiveTo compare the shear bond strength of different fixed retainer wire diameters bonded using a conventional composite resin or a specific retainer...

Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers

Online veröffentlicht: 15. Aug. 2021

Seitenbereich: 178 - 183

Eingereicht: 01. Feb. 2015

Akzeptiert: 01. Sept. 2015

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-153

© 2015 Kazem Al-Nimri et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.