CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2013; 07(03): 284-288
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.115411
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Are the low-shrinking composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding?

Suleyman Kutalmis Buyuk
1   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
Kenan Cantekin
2   Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry,Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
Sezer Demirbuga
3   Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Erciyes University, Kayseri, Turkey
Mehmet Ali Ozturk
4   Department of Orthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
26 September 2019 (online)


Purpose: To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and microleakage of low-shrinking and conventional composites used as an orthodontic bracket bonding adhesive. Materials and Methods: A hundred twenty non-caries human premolars, extracted for orthodontic purposes, were used in this study. Sixty of them were separated into two groups. Brackets were bonded to the teeth in the test group with Silorane (3M-Espe) and control group with Transbond-XT (3M-Unitek). SBS values of these brackets were recorded in MPa using a universal testing machine. ARI scores were determined after the failure of brackets. The remaining 60 teeth were divided into two groups and microleakage was evaluated by the dye penetration method. Statistical analyses were performed by Wilcoxon, Pearson Chi-square, and Mann-Whitney U tests at P < 0.05 level. Results: The mean SBS for Transbond XT was significantly greater than low-shrinking composite (P < 0.001). Significant differences (χ2 =29.60, P < 0.001) were present between the two groups for the ARI scores. Microleakage values were lower in low-shrinking composite than in the control group, and this difference was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.001). Conclusions: Although low-shrinking composite produced insufficient SBS and ARI scores, microleakage values were lower in low-shrinking composite than in the control group on the etched enamel surfaces, when used as a bracket bonding composite.


  • 1 Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-53
  • 2 Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of a new light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 114: 80-7
  • 3 Turgut MD, Attar N, Korkmaz Y, Gokcelik A. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites. Dent Mater J 2011; 30: 66-71
  • 4 James JW, Miller BH, English JD, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003; 123: 555-61
  • 5 Baize S, Leroy EM, Georges AJ, Georges-Courbot MC, Capron M, Bedjabaga I. et al. Inflammatory responses in Ebola virus-infected patients. Clin Exp Immunol 2002; 128: 163-8
  • 6 Mizrahi E. Enamel demineralization following orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1982; 82: 62-7
  • 7 Tufekci E, Dixon JS, Gunsolley JC, Lindauer SJ. Prevalence of white spot lesions during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Angle Orthod 2011; 81: 206-10
  • 8 Weinmann W, Thalacker C, Guggenberger R. Siloranes in dental composites. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 68-74
  • 9 Thalacker C, Miura A, De Feyter S, De Schryver FC, Wurthner F. Hydrogen bond directed self-assembly of core-substituted naphthalene bisimides with melamines in solution and at the graphite interface. Org Biomol Chem 2005; 3: 414-22
  • 10 Palin WM, Fleming GJ, Marquis PM. The reliability of standardized flexure strength testing procedures for a light-activated resin-based composite. Dent Mater 2005; 21: 911-9
  • 11 Arikan S, Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets photopolymerized with LED or conventional light curing units. Angle Orthod 2006; 76: 1035-40
  • 12 Reynolds IR. Letter: ′Composite filling materials as adhesives in orthodontics′. Br Dent J 1975; 138: 83
  • 13 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
  • 14 Uysal T, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding?. Angle Orthod 2004; 74: 697-702
  • 15 Park SB, Son WS, Ko CC, Garcia-Godoy F, Park MG, Kim HI. et al. Influence of flowable resins on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 730-4
  • 16 Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer Jr RA. Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991; 100: 251-8
  • 17 Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 201-6
  • 18 Gladwin MA, Bagby MD. Clinical aspects of dental materials: Theory, practice, and cases. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins; 2004
  • 19 Zachrisson BJ. A posttreatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977; 71: 173-89