Shear bond strength of rebonded metal brackets using four light-curing resins: an in vitro study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/biid.v13.45703Keywords:
bracket adhesion failure, bracket reconditioning, light-cure orthodontic adhesives, orthodontic rebonding, sandblasting surface treatmentAbstract
Background: Rebonding of orthodontic brackets requires effective surface conditioning to restore adequate adhesive retention.
Objective: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded metal brackets using four light-curing resins.
Material and methods: Eighty premolars were allocated to two conditioning protocols (n = 40 per group): G1 – enamel etching with 37% phosphoric acid; G2 – sandblasting of bracket bases followed by enamel etching. Each group was subdivided according to the resin used (n = 10 per subgroup): Orthocem (FGM), Bracespace (3M), Transbond XT (3M), and Z250 (3M). Brackets were bonded, debonded, reconditioned, and rebonded. SBS was tested using a universal testing machine (0.5 mm/min). Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn’s post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).
Results: In the acid‐etched group, there was no statistically significant difference in SBS among the four resins (Kruskal–Wallis, p = 0.097). In the sandblasting group, a significant intergroup difference was observed (p = 0.044). Dunn’s post-hoc test identified higher SBS for Bracespace (3M) and Transbond XT (3M) compared with Orthocem (FGM) and Z250 (3M). When comparing conditioning methods within each resin, sandblasting of the bracket bases resulted in significantly higher SBS only for Bracespace and Transbond XT, whereas Orthocem and Z250 showed no significant change.
Conclusions: Rebonding of metal brackets showed comparable SBS among resins after acid etching. However, when the bracket bases were sandblasted, Bracespace and Transbond exhibited significantly higher bond strengths. Surface preparation of the bracket base is therefore a key factor influencing SBS in rebonding procedures.
Downloads
References
Silva S, Kumar A, Kishore S, Ravi J, Gandhi R. Comparison of shear bond strength of the orthodontic brackets after different methods of recycling. Int J Chem Biochem Sci. 2023;24:431–5.
Lacruz RS, Habelitz S, Wright JT, Paine ML. Dental enamel formation and implication for oral health and disease. Physiol Rev. 2017;97:939–93.
https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00030.2016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1152/physrev.00030.2016
Janfaza J, Valizadeh S, Tanbakuchi B. Comparative assessment of the shear bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to the enamel surface with a self-adhesive system. Front Dent. 2024;21:18.
https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v21i18.15551 DOI: https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v21i18.15551
Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34:849–53.
https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345550340060801
Alvizo J. Estudio in vitro de los efectos del arenado del bracket metálico previo a la adhesión sobre su resistencia al desalojo. Seville: Universidad de Sevilla; 2014.
Basudan AM, Al-Emran SE. The effects of in-office reconditioning on the morphology of slots and bases of stainless steel brackets and on the shear/peel bond strength. J Orthod. 2001;28:231–6.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/28.3.231 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ortho/28.3.231
Patcas R, Zinelis S, Eliades G, Eliades T. Surface and interfacial analysis of sandblasted and acid-etched enamel for bonding orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;147:S64–75.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.01.014
Zhao Z, Wang Q, Zhao J, Zhao B, Ma Z, Zhang C. Adhesion of teeth. Front Mater. 2021;7:615225.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.615225 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2020.615225
Chen AM-C, Ekambaram M, Li KC, Cooper PR, Mei ML. A scoping review of the influence of clinical contaminants on bond strength in direct adhesive restorative procedures. J Dent. 2024;145:104985.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104985 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdent.2024.104985
Pithon MM, Oliveira MV, Ruellas AC, Bolognese AM, Romano FL. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel under different surface treatment conditions. J Appl Oral Sci. 2007;15:127–30.
https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000200010 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1590/S1678-77572007000200010
Haralur SB, Alqahtani AM, Shiban AS, Alattaf ZM, Chaturvedi S, Alqahtani SM, et al. Influence of different surface treatment on bonding of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to CAD-CAM all ceramic materials. BMC Oral Health 2023;23:564.
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03246-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03246-x
Rangappa A, Srinivasulu J, Rangaswamy V, Eregowda S, Lakshminarasimhaiah V, Lingareddy U. Comparative evaluation of bond strength of self-adhering flowable composites to the dentin prepared with different burs: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018;21:618–21.
https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_71_18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_71_18
Dudás C, Czumbel LM, Kiss S, Gede N, Hegyi P, Mártha K, et al. Clinical bracket failure rates between different bonding techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023;45:175–85.
https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjac050 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjac050
Boudrot M, François P, Abdel-Gawad S, Attal JP, Dantagnan CA. Shear bond strength of a RMGIC for orthodontic bracket bonding to enamel. BDJ Open. 2024;10:1.
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00181-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41405-023-00181-5
Grazioli G, Hardan L, Bourgi R, Nakanishi L, Amm E, Zarow M, et al. Residual adhesive removal methods for rebonding of debonded orthodontic metal brackets: systematic review and meta-analysis. Materials (Basel). 2021;14(20):6120.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14206120 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14206120
Anita P, Kailasam V. Effect of sandblasting on the shear bond strength of recycled metal brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in-vitro studies. Int Orthod. 2021;19:377–88.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.05.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2021.05.007
Dirie AR, Hajeer MY, Dabbas J, Al-Ibrahim HM. Evaluation of sandblasting with acid etching versus acid etching alone in the preparation of enamel for rebonding orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study and a randomized controlled trial. J World Fed Orthod. 2021;10:3–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2020.12.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2020.12.001
Finnema KJ, Ozcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010;137:615–22.e3.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.021 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.021
O’brien KD, Read MJ, Sandison RJ, Roberts CT. A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: an in vivo comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;95:348–51.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90169-8 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90169-8
Najjar YM, Burhan AS, Hajeer MY, Nawaya FR. Effects of the conventional, soft start, and pulse delay modes produced by light-emitting diode device on microleakage beneath metal brackets: an in vitro comparative study. Int Orthod. 2023;21:100718.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2022.100718 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ortho.2022.100718
Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8.
https://doi.org/10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666
Urichianu M, Makowka S, Covell D, Jr., Warunek S, Al-Jewair T. Shear bond strength and bracket base morphology of new and rebonded orthodontic ceramic brackets. Materials (Basel). 2022;15(5):1865.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051865 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15051865
Al-Daher MS, Sultan K, Hajeer MY, Burhan AS. Enamel deproteinization or sandblasting for enamel reconditioning before acid etching to enhance the shear bond strength of metallic brackets in a third bonding: an in vitro study. Cureus. 2024;16:e66210.
https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66210 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.66210
Fathima F, Shantaraj R, Pradeep S, Rajashekar DM, Kumar IG. A comparison of the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded after enamel conditioning with sodium hypochlorite and papain gel: an in vitro study. J Med Soc. 2022;36(3):101–5.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jms.jms_116_21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jms.jms_116_21
Alrai S, Eissa O, Diar-Bakirly S. Effect of enamel deproteinization on bonding orthodontic brackets: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Orthod Sci. 2025;14:28.
https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_106_24 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_106_24
Mas-López AC, Robles-Ruíz J, Arriola-Guillén LE. Effect of enamel deproteinization with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. An experimental study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2024;16:e947–52.
https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.61807 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4317/medoral.61807
Sharma S, Singh G, Tandon P, Nagar A. A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci. 2014;3:1–29.
https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.132892 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2278-0203.132892
Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets with new self-adhesive resin cements. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2010;137:528–33.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.027 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.04.027
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Verónica Estefanía Pozo, Mauricio Aguirre Balseca, Marjory Elizabeth Vaca Zapata, Karina Maria Salvatore Freitas, Johanna Elizabeth Fiallos Sanchez
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry is a Diamond Open Access peer-reviewed journal, publishing research in oral biomaterials science. The publishing of articles is free for authors, thanks to the support of Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Society (AOSS), a not-for-profit society. 
