In vitro bond strength and fatigue stress test evaluation of different adhesive cements used for fixed space maintainer cementation

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purposes of this research were to (1) compare the shear-peel bond strength (SPBS) of a band of a fixed space maintainer (SM) cemented with five different adhesive cements; and (2) compare the survival time of bands of SM with each cement type after simulating mechanical fatigue stress. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five teeth were used to assess retentive strength and another 50 teeth were used to assess the fatigue survival time. SPBS was determined with a universal testing machine. Fatigue testing was conducted in a ball mill device. Results: The mean survival time of bands cemented with R & D series Nova Glass-LC (6.2 h), Transbond Plus (6.7 h), and R & D series Nova Resin (6.8 h) was significantly longer than for bands cemented with Ketac-Cem (5.4 h) and GC Equia (5.2 h) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Although traditional glass ionomer cement (GIC) cement presented higher retentive strength than resin-based cements (resin, resin modified GIC, and compomer cement), resin based cements, especially dual cure resin cement (nova resin cement) and compomer (Transbond Plus), can be expected to have lower failure rates for band cementation than GIC (Ketac-Cem) in the light of the results of the ball mill test.

Key words:

Shear bond strength - space maintainers - transbond

• REFERENCES

• 1 Chaudhary V, Shrivastava B, Bhatia HP, Aggarwal A, Singh AK, Gupta N. Multifunctional Ribbond – A versatile tool. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2012; 36: 325-8
• 2 Laing E, Ashley P, Naini FB, Gill DS. Space maintenance. Int J Paediatr Dent 2009; 19: 155-62
• 3 Baroni C, Franchini A, Rimondini L. Survival of different types of space maintainers. Pediatr Dent 1994; 16: 360-1
• 4 Tannure PN, Valinoti AC, Maia LC. The use of a natural tooth crown following traumatic injuries in primary dentition. J Clin Pediatr Dent 2009; 33: 275-8
• 5 Qudeimat MA, Fayle SA. The longevity of space maintainers: A retrospective study. Pediatr Dent 1998; 20: 267-72
• 6 Mandall NA, Millett DT, Mattick CR, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV, Worthington HV. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; 2: CD002282
• 7 Millett DT, Duff S, Morrison L, Cummings A, Gilmour WH. In vitro comparison of orthodontic band cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 15-20
• 8 Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 333-40
• 9 Rajab LD. Clinical performance and survival of space maintainers: Evaluation over a period of 5 years. ASDC J Dent Child 2002; 69: 156-60 124
• 10 Fathian M, Kennedy DB, Nouri MR. Laboratory-made space maintainers: A 7-year retrospective study from private pediatric dental practice. Pediatr Dent 2007; 29: 500-6
• 11 Sasa IS, Hasan AA, Qudeimat MA. Longevity of band and loop space maintainers using glass ionomer cement: A prospective study. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent 2009; 10: 6-10
• 12 Aggarwal M, Foley TF, Rix D. A comparison of shear-peel band strengths of 5 orthodontic cements. Angle Orthod 2000; 70: 308-16
• 13 Gillgrass TJ, Benington PC, Millett DT, Newell J, Gilmour WH. Modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation?. A comparative clinical trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001; 120: 49-53
• 14 Millett DT, Cummings A, Letters S, Roger E, Love J. Resin-modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? – An in vitro evaluation. Eur J Orthod 2003; 25: 609-14
• 15 Millett DT, Kamahli K, McColl J. Comparative laboratory investigation of dual-cured vs. conventional glass ionomer cements for band cementation. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 345-50
• 16 Herion T, Ferracane JL, Covell Jr DA. Three cements used for orthodontic banding of porcelain molars. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 94-9