Summary
The aim of the present study was to evaluate which material and technique were the best for bonding 3×3 lingual retainer. One hundred and five bovine mandibular incisors were used, to which contention bars with a standardized size of 7 mm were bonded to the lingual surface. Initially all teeth received prophylaxis with pumice stone and water. After this they were randomly divided into seven groups, denominated and characterized as follows: Group (1) bars bonded with Transbond XT in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions; (2) Tooth surface etching with self-etching agent Transbond (SEPT) followed by bonding with Transbond XT; (3) Bonding with Transbond Plus Color Change (TPCC) without adhesive; (4) Bonding with TPCC + SEPT; (5) Bonding with restorative composite Z100 + adhesive Prime Bond, (6) Z100 without adhesive and (7) Z100 + SEPT. Before bonding in Groups 1, 3, 5 and 6 the lingual surface was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 seconds, followed by washing and drying. After bonding the mechanical tests were performed in a Universal mechanical test machine. The values obtained were submitted to the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and afterwards to the Tukey test (p<0.05). We observed absence of statistical differences among Groups 1, 2, 5 and 7 and among Groups 3, 4, 5 and 6 (p<0.05). Group 1 presented the highest bond strength value and Group 6 the lowest. It could be concluded that where bonding of lingual retainer is concerned; the best material to use is Transbond XT irrespective of the etching method, followed by composite Z100 etched with SEPT.
KEY WORDS: shear strength, composite resins, orthodontic appliances.
How to cite this article
PITHON, M. M.; FERRAZ, C. S.; DE OLIVEIRA, G. C. & MAGALHAES, P. H. B. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strength of materials used in bonding 3×3 lingual retainer. Int. J. Odontostomat., 7(3):401-405, 2013.
