The addition of carbon nanotubes to orthodontic adhesives: an in vitro study

Publications

Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine

GET ALERTS

ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480

DESCRIPTION

18
Reader(s)
21
Visit(s)
0
Comment(s)
0
Share(s)

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue / page

Archive
Volume 38 (2022)
Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 33 , ISSUE 1 (May 2017) > List of articles

The addition of carbon nanotubes to orthodontic adhesives: an in vitro study

Paulo Guilherme Bittencourt Marchi * / Felipe de Brum Ricardi / Maurício Matté Zanini / Paulo Rodrigo Stival Bittencourt / Mauro Carlos Agner Busato

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 33, Issue 1, Pages 57-63, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21307/aoj-2020-085

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 30-July-2021

ARTICLE

ABSTRACT

Objective: The evolution of adhesive dentistry and the addition of nanoparticles has heralded an improvement in the mechanical properties of adhesives. Thus, the aim of the present study was to evaluate the effects produced by carbon nanotubes (CN) added to two adhesives used for indirect bonding by an examination of the shear bond strength (SBS) and location of bond failure.

Methods: One hundred and sixty bovine incisors were randomly divided into eight groups (N = 20): (1) indirect bonding with Sondhi adhesive; (2), (3) and (4) indirect bonding with Sondhi adhesive into which CN at 0.5%, 0.25% and 0.05% concentrations were incorporated; (5) indirect bonding with Concise adhesive; (6), (7) and (8) indirect bonding with Concise adhesive into which CN at 0.5%, 0.25% and 0.05% concentrations were incorporated. Following etching with 37% phosphoric acid and the placement of brackets, maximum shear bond strength (SBS) was measured with a mechanical testing machine. The location of bond failure was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). The SBS between groups and ARI scores were statistically analysed (p < 0.05).

Results: There was no statistical difference (p > 0.05) in SBS or ARI.

Conclusions: CN addition to Concise and Sondhi adhesives did not influence the SBS and the ARI of the brackets. Therefore, in the conditions of this experiment, there was no benefit in the addition of CN to orthodontic adhesives.

Content not available PDF Share

FIGURES & TABLES

REFERENCES

1. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51:901-12.

2. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978;74:62-78.

3. Kanashiro LK, Robles-Ruíz JJ, Ciamponi AL, Medeiros IS, Dominguez GC, de Fantini SM. Effect of adhesion boosters on indirect bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2014;84:171-6.

4. Thiyagarajah S, Spary DJ, Rock WP. A clinical comparison of bracket bond failures in association with direct and indirect bonding. J Orthod 2006;33:198-204.

5. Labella R,Lambrechts P,Van Meerbeek B,Vanherle G. Polymerization shrinkage and elasticity of flowable composites and filled adhesives. Dent Mater 1999;15:128-37.

6. Sfondrini MF,Massironi S,Pieraccini G,Scribante A,Vallittu PK,Lassila LV et al. Flexural strengths of conventional and nanofilled fiberreinforced composites: a three-point bending test. Dent Traumatol 2014;30:32-5.

7. Bal S, Samal SS. Carbon nanotube reinforced polymer composites–A state of the art. Bull Mater Sci 2007;30:379-86.

8. Iijima S. Helical microtubules of graphitic carbon. Nature 1991;354:56-8.

9. Kearns JC, Shambaugh RL. Polypropylene fibers reinforced with carbon nanotubes. J Appl Polymer Sci 2002;86:2079-84.

10. Pienkowski DA, Andrews RJ. Polymethylmethacrylate augmented with carbon nanotubes. Chem Mater 2007;12:1049-63.

11. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972;62:236-44.

12. Sondhi A. Efficient and effective indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:352-9.

13. Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94:367-71.

14. Yi GK, Dunn WJ, Taloumis LJ. Shear bond strength comparison between direct and indirect bonded orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:577-81.

15. Thompson MA, Drummond JL, BeGole EA. Bond strength analysis of custom base variables in indirect bonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;133:9.e15-20.

16. Pandis N. Sample calculations for comparison of 2 means. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012;141:519-21.

17. Vogel AI. Textbook of Quantitative Chemical Analysis. 5th edn. London: Longman, 1981.

18. Moore VC, Strano MS, Haroz EH, Hauge RH, Smalley RE, Schmidt J, Talmon Y. Individually suspended single-walled carbon nanotubes in various surfactants. Nano Lett 2003;3:1379-82.

19. Ausman KD, Piner R, Lourie O, Ruoff RS, Korobov M. Organic solvent dispersions of single-walled carbon nanotubes: toward solutions of pristine nanotubes. J Phys Chem B 2000;104:8911-5.

20. Turagam N, Mudrakola DP. Effect of micro-additions of carbon nanotubes to polymethylmethacrylate on reduction in polymerization shrinkage. J Prosthodont 2013;22:105-11.

21. Cal Neto JOA, Miguel JAM. An analysis of in vitro bond strength testing in orthodontics. Rev Dent Press Ortodon Ortop Facial 2004;9:44-51.

22. 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.

23. Meguid SA, Sun Y. On the tensile and shear strength of nanoreinforced composite interfaces. Materials & design 2004;25:289-96.

24. Argueta-Figueroa L, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Morales-Luckie RA, OleaMejía OF. An evaluation of the antibacterial properties and shear bond strength of copper nanoparticles as a nanofiller in orthodontic adhesive. Aust Orthod J 2015;31:42-8.

25. Yeung KC, Chow TW, Clark RT. Temperature and dimensional changes in the two-stage processing technique for complete dentures. J Dent 1995;23:245-53.

26. Lewis G, Mladsi S. Correlation between impact strength and fracture toughness of PMMA-based bone cements. Biomaterials 2000;21:775-81.

27. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res 1983;62:1076-81.

28. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:514-9.

29. Polat O, Karaman AI, Buyukyilmaz T. In vitro evaluation of shear bond strengths and in vivo analysis of bond survival of indirectbonding resins. Angle Orthod 2004;74:405-9.

30. Miéssi AC, Goiato MC, dos Santos DM, Dekon SF, Okida RC. Influence of storage period and effect of different brands of acrylic resin on the dimensional accuracy of the maxillary denture base. Braz Dent J 2008;19:204-8.

31. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8.

32. Flores T, Mayoral JR, Giner L, Puigdollers A. Comparison of enamel-bracket bond strength using direct- and indirect-bonding techniques with a self-etching ion releasing S-PRG filler. Dent Mater J 2015;34:41-7.

33. Linn BJ, Berzins DW, Dhuru VB, Bradley TG. A comparison of bond strength between direct- and indirect-bonding methods. Angle Orthod 2006;76:289-94.

EXTRA FILES

COMMENTS