A comparison between RMGIC and composite with acid-etch preparation or hypochlorite on the adhesion of a premolar metal bracket by testing SBS and ARI: In vitro study.

OBJECTIVE

A bonding material can be acceptable in orthodontics when Shear Bond Strength (SBS) is higher than 5.9Mpa. The aim of our study was to compare the bonding of a metal orthodontic bracket "in vitro" under different types of healthy enamel surface preparations and with two bonding products: the composite and the Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC).

METHODS

Premolars preserved in 1% thymol water were bonded on their vestibular and palatal/lingual surfaces with different techniques of bonding and surface preparation: Group 1: Etching+Bonding+Composite, Group 2: Etching+Fuji Ortho LC, Group 3: V-prep+Fuji Ortho LC, Group 4: V-prep+Fuji Ortho LC+Thermocycling. The SBS was measured in Newton on the universal testing machine and the sample was observed under an optical microscope with 10-fold magnification to note the adhesive remnant index score (ARI), before and after thermocycling.

RESULTS

120 premolars were used in this study. RMGIC bonding was significantly increased when the surface was prepared at V-prep (P<0.001). In these conditions, RMGIC bonding on the buccal surface was similar to that of the composite and superior on the palatal/lingual surface (P=1). After 2 years of aging using a thermocycling machine for simulation, RMGIC bonding significantly decreased (P<0.001). The ARI score was significantly lower for the RMGIC group than the composite group (P<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

RMGIC bonding with V-prep preparation is recommended for palatal/lingual surfaces and for hard-to-dry surfaces. For vestibular surfaces, studies are still needed to recommend bonding with RMGIC instead of composite.