Mechanics of Composite Materials

, Volume 51, Issue 6, pp 805–812 | Cite as

Damage of the Interface Between an Orthodontic Bracket and Enamel – the Effect of Some Elastic Properties of the Adhesive Material

  • B. H. Durgesh
  • A. A. Alkheraif
  • M. Al Sharawy
  • J. Varrela
  • P. K. Vallittu

The aim of this study was to investigate the magnitude of debonding stress of an orthodontic bracket bonded to the enamel with resin systems having different elastic properties. For the same purpose, sixty human premolars were randomly divided into four groups according to the adhesive system used for bonding brackets: G Fix flowable resin (GFI) with Everstick NET (ESN), GFI, G Aenial Universal Flow (GAU) with ESN, and GAU. The brackets were stressed in the occlusogingival direction on a universal testing machine. The values of debonding load and displacement were determined at the point of debonding. The elastic modulus of the tested materials was determined using nanoindentation. An analysis of variance showed a significant difference in the loads required to debond the bracket among the groups tested. The GAU group had the highest elastic modulus, followed by the GFI and ESN groups. ARI (Adhesive Remnant Index) scores demonstrated more remnants of the adhesive material on the bracket surface with adhesives having a higher elastic modulus. Taking into consideration results of the present in-vitro study, it can be concluded that the incorporation of a glass-fiber-reinforced composite resin (FRC) with a low elastic modulus between the orthodontic bracket and enamel increases the debonding force and strain more than with adhesive systems having a higher elastic modulus.


adhesives debonding shear strain 



The project was financially supported by the Vice Deanship of Research Chairs, King Saud University. The investigation was carried out at the Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre-TCBC, Institute of Dentistry, University of Turku, Finland and Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, College of Applied Medical Sciences, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.


  1. 1.
    M. Ekambaram, C. K. Y. Yiu, and J. P. Matinlinna, “An overview of solvents in resin–dentin bonding,” Int. J. of Adhesion and Adhesives, 57, 22-33 (2015).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    S. E. Bishara, et al., “Comparison of the shear bond strength of 2 self-etch primer/adhesive systems,” Am. J. Orthod Dentofacial Orthop., 125, No. 3, 348-350 (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Peumans, et al., “Clinical effectiveness of contemporary adhesives: a systematic review of current clinical trials,” Dent. Mater., 21, No. 9, 864-881 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    D. B. Ryou, et al., “Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding,” Angle Orthod., 78, No. 6, 1105-1109 (2008).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. D’Attilio, et al., “Shear bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use,” Angle Orthod., 75, No. 3, 410-415 (2005).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    S. Tecco, et al., “A new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an in vitro bond strength study,” Angle Orthod., 75, No. 4, 672-677 (2005).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    T. R. Katona, “Stresses developed during clinical debonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets,” The Angle Orthodontist, 67, No. 1, 39-46 (1997).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    S. Bouillaguet, et al., “Hydrothermal and mechanical stresses degrade fiber-matrix interfacial bond strength in dental fiber-reinforced composites,” J. Biomed. Mater. Res. B, Appl. Biomater., 76, No. 1, 98-105 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    P. K. Vallittu, “Comparison of two different silane compounds used for improving adhesion between fibres and acrylic denture base material,” J. Oral. Rehabil., 20, No. 5), 533-539 (1993).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Y. K. Lung and J. P. Matinlinna, “Silanes for adhesion promotion and surface modification,” in Silane: Chemistry, Applications and Performance, 2013, Nova Sci Publ.: Hauppauge. p. 87.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    S. Garoushi, P. K. Vallittu, and L. V. J. Lassila, “Use of short fiber-reinforced composite with semi-interpenetrating polymer network matrix in fixed partial dentures,” J. Dent., 35,No. 5, 403-408 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. C. Smith, “Recent developments and prospects in dental polymers,” J. Prosthet. Dent., 12, No. 6, 1066-1078 (1962).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    P. K. Vallittu, “Compositional and weave pattern analyses of glass fibers in dental polymer fiber composites,” J. Prosthodont, 7, No. 3, 170-176 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    T. J. Nohrstrom, P. K. Vallittu, and A. Yli-Urpo, “The effect of placement and quantity of glass fibers on the fracture resistance of interim fixed partial dentures,” Int. J. Prosthodont, 13, No. 1, 72-78 (2000).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    K. H. Chong and J. Chai, “Strength and mode of failure of unidirectional and bidirectional glass fiber-reinforced composite materials,” Int. J. Prosthodont, 16, No. 2, 161-166 (2003).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    D. Edelhoff, H. Spiekermann, and M. Yildirim, “Metal-free inlay-retained fixed partial dentures,” Quintessence Int., 32, No. 4, 269-281 (2001).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    T. N. Gohring, P. R. Schmidlin, and F. Lutz, “Two-year clinical and SEM evaluation of glass-fiber-reinforced inlay fixed partial dentures.” Am. J. Dent., 15, No. 1, 35-40 (2002).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    C. Kolbeck, et al., “In vitro examination of the fracture strength of 3 different fiber-reinforced composite and 1 allceramic posterior inlay fixed partial denture systems,” J. Prosthodont., 11, No. 4, 248-253 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    C. Monaco, et al., “Clinical evaluation of fiber-reinforced composite inlay FPDs,” Int. J. Prosthodont., 16, No. 3, 319-325 (2003).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Petersen, R.C., Discontinuous fiber-reinforced composites above critical length. J. Dent. Res., 84, No. 4, 365-370 (2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    P. Valyi, et al., “Effect of occlusal therapy with FRC splint on periodontal parameters in maintenance phase,” Fogorv Sz, 98,No. 4, 159-163 (2005).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    V. Cacciafesta, et al., “Flexural strengths of fiber-reinforced composites polymerized with conventional light-curing and additional postcuring,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 132, No. 4, 524-527 (2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Scribante, V. Cacciafesta, and M. F. Sfondrini, “Effect of various adhesive systems on the shear bond strength of fiber-reinforced composite,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 130, No. 2, 224-227 (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. M. Lastumaki, T. T. Kallio, and P. K. Vallittu, “The bond strength of light-curing composite resin to finally polymerized and aged glass fiber-reinforced composite substrate.” Biomaterials, 23, No. 23, 4533-4539 (2002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    P. K. Vallittu, “Interpenetrating polymer Networks (IPNs) in dental polymers and composites,” J. of Adhesion Sci. and Technol., 23, No. 7-8, 961-972 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    J. Artun and S. Bergland, “Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment,” Am. J. Orthod., 85, No. 4, 333-340 (1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    B. Pick, et al., “Are flowable resin-based composites a reliable material for metal orthodontic bracket bonding?” J. Contemp. Dent. Pract., 11, No. 4, E017-E024 (2010).Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    M. Shinya, et al., “Enhanced degree of monomer conversion of orthodontic adhesives using a glass-fiber layer under the bracket,” Angle Orthod., 79, No. 3, 546-550 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    G. V. Newman, et al., “Adhesion promoters, their effect on the bond strength of metal brackets,” Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop., 108, No. 3, 237-241 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    R. M., Carvalho, et al., “Effects of prism orientation on tensile strength of enamel,” J. Adhes. Dent., 2, No. 4, 251-257 (2000).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    I. R., Reynolds, “A review of direct orthodontic bonding,” Br. J. Orthodont., 2, 171-178 (1975).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    M. D. Turgut, et al., “Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites,” Dent. Mater. J., 30, No. 1, 66-71 (2011).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. H. Durgesh
    • 1
  • A. A. Alkheraif
    • 1
  • M. Al Sharawy
    • 2
  • J. Varrela
    • 3
    • 4
  • P. K. Vallittu
    • 4
    • 5
    • 6
  1. 1.Dental Health Department, Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, College of Applied Medical SciencesKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.Bio-Medical Technology, Dental Biomaterials Research Chair, College of Applied Medical SciencesKing Saud UniversityRiyadhSaudi Arabia
  3. 3.Department of Oral Development and Orthodontics, Institute of DentistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  4. 4.City of Turku Welfare DivisionOral Health CareTurkuFinland
  5. 5.Department of Biomaterials Science and Turku Clinical Biomaterials Centre-TCBC, Institute of DentistryUniversity of TurkuTurkuFinland
  6. 6.King Saud University, Visiting Professor ProgramRiyadhSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations