In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial

References

• Bishara SE, Khowassah MA, Oesteerle LJ. Effect of humidity and temperature changes on orthodontic bonding adhesive systems. J Dent Res 1975; 54: 751–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zachrisson BU. A post-treatment evaluation of direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod 1977; 71: 173–89.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Newman GV. A post-treatment survey of direct bonding of metal brackets. Am J Orthod 1978; 74: 197–206.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Mizrahi E. Success and failure of banding and bonding. A clinical study. Angle Orthod 1982; 52: 113–17.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trimpeneers LM, Dermaut LR. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of two orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 547–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grandhi RK, Combe EC, Speidel TM. Shear bond strength of stainless steel orthodontic brackets with a moisture-insensitive primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 119: 251–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewoldsen N, Demke RS. A review of orthodontic cements and adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 45–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobson RS, Ledvinka J, Meechan JG. The effect of moisture and blood contamination on bond strength of a new orthodontic bonding material. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 54–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Webster MJ, Nanda RS, Duncanson MG, Khajotia SS, Sinha PK. The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 119: 54–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Eliades T, Katsavrias E, Eliades G. Moisture-insensitive adhesives: reactivity with water and bond strength to wet and saliva-contaminated enamel. Eur J Orthod 2002; 24: 35–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rix D, Foley TF, Mamandras A. Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 119: 36–42.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC, Bubb NL, Wood DJ. Investigation of a hydrophilic primer for orthodontic bonding: an in vitro study. J Orthod 2000; 27: 181–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod 2000; 22: 13–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984; 85: 333–40.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Karamouzos A, Mavropoulos A, Athanasiou AE, Kolokithas G. In vivo evaluation of a moisture-active orthodontic adhesive: a comparative clinical trial. Orthod Craniofac Res 2002; 5: 170–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Brantley WA, Eliades T. Orthodontic Materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme, 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC. A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. J Orthod 2001; 28: 301–5.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Verbeeck RMH, De Maeyer EAP, Marks LAM, De Moor RJG, De Witte AMJC, Trimpeneers LM. Fluoride release process of (resin-modified) glass-ionomer cements versus (polyacid-modified) composite resins. Biomaterials 1998; 19: 509–19.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part I: Wetting with water. Clin Orthod Res 1998; 1: 29–36.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• O’Brien KD, Read MJ, Sandison RJ, Roberts CT. A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: an in vivo comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 95: 348–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sunna S, Rock WP. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod 1998; 25: 283–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Shammaa I, Ngan P, Kim H, Kao E, Gladwin M, Gunel E, Brown C. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. Angle Orthod 1999; 69: 463–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cacciafesta V, Bosch C, Melsen B. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 2: bonding on dry enamel and on enamel soaked with saliva. Clin Orthod Res 1999; 2: 186–93.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Chung CH, Piatti A. Clinical comparison of the bond failure rates between fluoride-releasing and non-fluoride-releasing composite resins. J Clin Orthod 2000; 34: 409–12.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lovius BBJ, Pender N, Hewage S, O’Dowling I, Tomkins A. A clinical trial of a light activated material over an 18-month period. Br J Orthod 1987; 14: 11–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Wiltshire WA. Shear bond strength of a glass ionomer for direct bonding in orthodontics. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1994; 106: 127–30.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Trimpeneers LM, Dermaut LR. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of two orthodontic bonding systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1996; 110: 547–50.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carstensen W. Clinical results after direct bonding of brackets using shorter etching times. Am J Orthod 1986; 89: 70–2.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R, Oliver RG, Newcombe RG. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of directly bonded brackets using etch times of 15 or 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988; 94: 476–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Read MJ, O’Brien KD. A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990; 98: 259–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millett DT, Hallgren A, Cattanach D, McFadzean R, Pattison J, Robertson M, Love J. A 5-year clinical review of bond failure with a light-cured resin adhesive. Angle Orthod 1998; 68: 351–6.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Armas Galindo HR, Sadowsky PL, Vlachos C, Jacobson A, Wallace D. An in vivo comparison between a visible light-cured bonding system and a chemically cured bonding system. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998; 113: 271–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood ML, Rawls HR, Zimmerman BF. Clinical evaluation of a fluoride-exchanging resin as an orthodontic adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989; 96: 93–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Implications of the failure rates of bonded brackets and eyelets: a clinical study. Am J Orthod 1984; 86: 403–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch Oral Biol 1982; 27: 383–92.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• White L. Toothbrush pressures of orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod 1983; 83: 109–13.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Hitmi L, Muller C, Mujajic M, Attal JP. An 18-month clinical study of bond failures with resin-modified glass ionomer cement in orthodontic practice. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001; 120: 406–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Millet DT, Gordon PH. A 5-year clinical review of bond failure with a no-mix adhesive (Right on). Eur J Orthod 1994; 16: 203–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar