Skip to main content
Fig. 4 | Head & Face Medicine

Fig. 4

From: Analysing the potential of hydrophilic adhesive systems to optimise orthodontic bracket rebonding

Fig. 4

Comparison of different rebonding systems. a Shear bond strength, b ARI and c rate of enamel fractures of orthodontic attachments bonded to bovine incisors with Transbond XT™ (TB XT) after artificial bracket loss. Different primers and product combinations were used with or without enamel etching (each n = 20). a Rebonding led to a decreased shear bond strength, whereas a low shear bond strength could be compensated by the use of Assure™ PLUS. No etching approaches resulted in non-sufficient SBS. Plastic Conditioner did not seem to further enhance shear bond strength at rebonding. b Mean ARI-score ranged between 4 and 5, but significant lower in Assure™ PLUS (2,63 ± 1,54). c The rate of enamel fractures was higher in Assure™ PLUS. A = Assure™ PLUS, P=Plastic Conditioner, re. = rebonding, Øetching = no usage of phosphoric acid. Data shown as mean ± SEM or as relative frequency; statistically significant differences (p ≤ 0.05) are marked with * and # (significant differences to all other groups)

Back to article page
\