English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of self-etching and phosphoric acid-etching orthodontic adhesives for enamel bonding in simulated clinical conditions. By using two self-etching (Transbond Plus, TP; Beauty Ortho Bond, BB) and two acid-etching (Transbond XT, TX; Superbond Orthomite, SB) adhesives, orthodontic brackets were bonded on human premolars (n=10 for each adhesive). Ten teeth without bracket bonding, i.e., intact enamel surfaces, were used as control for SEM observation. After 7-day storage in lactic acid solution, bracket debonding force by means of debonding pliers, adhesive remnant index (ARI), and enamel surface morphology were examined. All the tested adhesives exhibited sufficient bond strength for clinical use. The ARI scores were almost the same among the four adhesives. In terms of SEM observation, the enamel surfaces in the control and TP groups showed a slight change after immersion in lactic acid solution, while the BB group showed less change on the enamel surface compared with the TP group. Meanwhile, the two acid-etching adhesives caused considerable demineralization. Taken together, these findings indicated that the action of self-etching systems was evidently more conservative.

Enamel bonding of self-etching and phosphoric acid-etching orthodontic adhesives in simulated clinical conditions: Debonding force and enamel surface