Premium
In vivo evaluation of a moisture‐activated orthodontic adhesive: a comparative clinical trial[Note 1. To cite this article: Orthod. Craniofacial Res. 5, 2002; ...]
Author(s) -
Karamouzos A,
Mavropoulos A,
Athanasiou AE,
Kolokithas G
Publication year - 2002
Publication title -
orthodontics and craniofacial research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 55
eISSN - 1601-6343
pISSN - 1601-6335
DOI - 10.1034/j.1600-0544.2002.02207.x
Subject(s) - adhesive , bracket , dentistry , molar , materials science , composite material , cyanoacrylate , bond strength , orthodontics , medicine , structural engineering , engineering , layer (electronics)
Structured AbstractAuthors –Karamouzos A, Mavropoulos A, Athanasiou AE, Kolokithas G.Objectives –To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of a water‐activated, ethyl‐cyanoacrylate adhesive to a conventional composite resin. The null hypothesis tested was that there was no difference in bracket survival distribution, over a period of orthodontic treatment, for brackets bonded with either bonding agent.Design –Single center randomized controlled clinical study.Setting and Sample Population – Twenty‐five consecutive patients (15 females and 10 males) were selected and treated with fixed appliances in a university postgraduate orthodontic clinic. All teeth, but the molars, were bonded with twin stainless steel brackets (n =429) using a split‐mouth technique and random allocation of the two adhesives.Outcome Measure –Bond failure rates during a period of 9 months were estimated for each adhesive system and the corresponding bracket survival curves were plotted using the Kaplan–Meier product‐limit estimate. Bracket survival distributions with respect to adhesive material, tooth location, investigator, and bond failure interface were then compared by means of a log‐rank test. Bond failure interface was determined using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).Results – The water‐activated bonding material recorded a significantly higher bond failure (22.4%) than the composite resin (5.1%). There were also statistically significant differences in bracket survival distributions between the two adhesives (log‐rank test: p < 0.001). Premolars exhibited higher bond failure rates than incisors and canines (p < 0001). The predominant mode of failure was within the bonding material.Conclusion –Further investigations focused on the improvement of the physical and mechanical properties of the water‐activated bonding system are needed to make it a reliable alternative adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.