Comparison of bond strength of three adhesives: composite resin, hybrid GIC, and glass-filled GIC. Comparison of bracket debonding force between two conventional resin adhesives and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement: an in vitro and in vivo study. A clinical study of glass ionomer cement. Resin‐modified glass ionomer cement vs composite for orthodontic bonding: A multicenter, single‐blind, randomized controlled trial Comparison of bond strength between a conventional resin adhesive and a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive: an in vitro and in vivo study. Decalcification in relation to brackets bonded with glass ionomer cement or a resin adhesive. A new self-curing resin-modified glass-ionomer cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets in vivo. Clinical and microbiologic evaluation of a resin modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding. Demineralization around orthodontic brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and fluoride-releasing resin composite. A comparative in vitro study of the strength of directly bonded brackets using different curing techniques. In vivo bracket retention comparison of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement and a resin-based bracket adhesive system after a year. A 12-month clinical evaluation of a glass polyalkenoate cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. A 12-month clinical evaluation of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate (ionomer) cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. 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. Clinical comparison between a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement and a composite resin for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets Part 1: Wetting with water. Decalcification and bond failure: A comparison of a glass ionomer and a composite resin bonding system in vivo. Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets.
The objective of this study was to compare 3  orthodontic adhesives  in the areas of shear-peel bond strength , location of adhesive failure , and extent of enamel cracking before bonding and after debonding of orthodontic brackets . The adhesives included a composite resin control ( Transbond XT ; 3M/Unitek , St Paul , Minn ) , a resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America Corp , Alsip , Ill ) , and a polyacid-modified composite resin under dry and saliva-contaminated conditions ( Assure ; Reliance Orthodontic Products Inc , Itasca , Ill ) . Metal brackets were bonded to the buccal surfaces of 160 ( 4 groups of 40 ) human premolars . The bonded teeth were stored in deionized water at 37 degrees C for 30 days and thermocycled for 24 hours before debonding with a Universal Instron ( Instron Corp , Canton , Mass ) testing machine . The extent of cracking in the buccal surfaces was evaluated under 16x magnification before bonding and after debonding . Although the bond strength of the composite resin control ( 20.19 MPa ) was significantly greater ( P < .05 ) than that of the adhesives in the other groups , clinical ly acceptable shear-peel bond strengths were found for all adhesives ( Fuji Ortho LC = 13.57 MPa , Assure-dry = 10.74 MPa , Assure-wet = 10.99 MPa ) . The bond strength for the Assure adhesive was not significantly affected by saliva contamination . The sample of extracted premolars used in this study displayed a greater frequency of buccal surface enamel cracking ( 46.7 % ) than that reported in the literature for in vivo premolars ( 7.8%-10.2 % ) , which was possibly due to the extraction process . The frequency of enamel cracking in a subset of this sample ( n = 34 ) increased from 46.4 % at prebonding to 62.4 % at postdebonding as a result of the forces of debonding The purpose of this study was to compare the debonding force of orthodontic brackets bonded with two conventional resin adhesives ( Resilience L3 and Light Bond ) and a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ) . For the in vitro part of the study , 80 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into four groups . In groups A and B , brackets were bonded to unetched enamel using Fuji Ortho LC cement in wet and dry conditions , respectively . In groups C and D , brackets were bonded to etched enamel using Resilience L3 and Light Bond , respectively .  Debonding force was determined using a servohydraulic testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data was analyzed using the ANOVA and Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison test at p<0.05 . A significant difference was found in debonding force between unetched Fuji Ortho LC and the two conventional resins . There was no significant difference between the two conventional resins or between unetched resin-reinforced glass ionomer in the wet and dry conditions . For the in vivo part of the study , 30 patients were r and omly assigned to one of the three bonding material groups . Bracket survival rates and distributions were obtained by following these patients for 1.2 years . Data was analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . Bond failure interface was determined using a modified adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) . These results showed no significant difference between survival rates and distributions among the three bonding material s with respect to the type of malocclusion , type of orthodontic treatment , or location of bracket . There were significant differences between survival distributions of males and females in the unetched Fuji Ortho LC group and among type of teeth in the conventional resin groups . The predominant mode of bracket failure for the unetched Fuji Ortho LC cement was at the enamel-adhesive interface , and for conventional resins , the enamel-adhesive interface and the bracket-adhesive interface . These results suggest that resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement can withst and occlusal and orthodontic forces despite having a bond strength lower than that of conventional resin adhesives The aim of this investigation was to compare the clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement ( GIC ) with a composite resin when used for direct bonding of st and ard edgewise orthodontic brackets . Fourteen patients ( 10 females , four males ) , in whom 242 teeth were bonded with brackets , were divided into two groups : GIC ( 121 teeth ) and composite ( 121 teeth ) . The brackets were allocated to alternate quadrants and first-time failures were recorded over a period of 24 months . Data were analysed statistically ( non-parametric chi-squared test ) . The results demonstrated a significantly lower unp review ed debonding index ( UDI ) ( 15.7 per cent ) for the composite than for the GIC ( 28.1 per cent ) ( P = 0.042 ) . The use of heavy archwires was largely responsible for this difference . No difference was observed when light and medium archwires were used . GIC may be a viable alternative to composite for use with light archwires and with limited treatment objectives Introduction : In this study , we aim ed to compare the incidence of new demineralized lesions and bond failures between 2 groups of participants wearing fixed orthodontic appliances bonded with either light‐cured resin‐modified glass ionomer cement or light‐cured composite .  Methods : This trial was a multicenter ( 6 centers : 2 teaching hospitals , 4 specialist orthodontic practice s ) , single‐blinded , r and omized controlled trial with 2 parallel groups . Patients aged 11 years or older , in the permanent dentition , and about to start fixed orthodontic treatment in these 6 centers were r and omly allocated to have either resin‐modified glass ionomer cement or light‐cured composite for bonding brackets , forward of the first molars . Pretreatment and day‐of‐debond digital photographic images were taken of the teeth and assessed by up to 5 clinical and 3 lay assessors for the presence or absence of new demineralized lesions and the esthetic impact . The assessors were masked as to group allocation . Results : We r and omized 210 participants , and 197 completed the trial . There were 173 with complete before‐ and after‐digital images of the teeth . The incidence of new demineralized lesions was 24 % ; but when the esthetic impact was taken into account , this was considerably lower ( 9 % ) . There was no statistically significant difference between the bracket adhesives in the numbers with at least 1 new demineralized lesion ( risk ratio,1.25 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.74‐2.13 ; P = 0.403 ) or first‐time bracket failure ( risk ratio,0.88 ; 95 % confidence interval , 0.67‐1.16 ; P = 0.35 ) . There were no adverse effects . Conclusions : There is no evidence that the use of resin modified glass ionomer cement over light‐cured composite for bonding brackets reduces the incidence of new demineralized lesions or bond failures . There might be other reasons for using resin modified glass ionomer cement . Registration : This trial was registered at Clinical Trials.gov NCT01925924 . Protocol : The protocol is available from the corresponding author on request The objectives of this study were ( 1 ) to compare the in vivo survival rates of orthodontic brackets bonded with a resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive ( Fuji Ortho LC ; GC America , Alsip , Ill ) after conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid and a conventional resin adhesive ( Light Bond ; Reliance Orthodontic Products , Itasca , Ill ) bonded with 37 % phosphoric acid , ( 2 ) to compare the in vitro bond shear/peel bond strength between the 2 adhesives , ( 3 ) to determine the mode of bracket failure in the in vivo and in vitro tests according to the adhesive remnant index ( ARI ) , and ( 4 ) to compare the changes in surface morphology of enamel surface after etching or conditioning with 10 % polyacrylic acid , with scanning electron microscopy . In the in vitro study , 50 extracted premolars were r and omly divided into 4 groups : brackets bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive that were debonded after either 30 minutes or 24 hours . Bond strengths were determined with a testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min . Data were analyzed with analysis of variance and a paired Student t test . The in vivo study consisted of 398 teeth that were r and omly bonded with Fuji Ortho LC or Light Bond adhesive in 22 subjects with the split-mouth technique . Bracket survival rates and distribution were followed for 1.3 years . Data were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier product-limit estimates of survivorship function . The in vitro study results showed significant differences ( P < .05 ) among the adhesives and the debond times . Light Bond had significantly greater bond strengths than Fuji Ortho LC at 24 hours ( 18.46 + /- 2.95 MPa vs 9.56 + /- 1.85 MPa ) and 30 minutes ( 16.19 + /- 2.04 MPa vs 6.93 + /- 1.93 MPa ) . Mean ARI scores showed that Fuji Ortho LC had significantly greater incidences of enamel/adhesive failure than Light Bond adhesive ( 4.9 vs 4.1 ) . For the in vivo study , no significant differences in failure rate , sex , or location in dental arch or ARI ratings were found between the 2 adhesives . These results suggest that , compared with conventional resin , brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive had significantly less shear bond strength in vitro . However , similar survival rates of the 2 material s studied after 1.3 years indicate that resin-reinforced glass ionomers can provide adequate bond strengths clinical ly . The weaker chemical bonding between the adhesive and the enamel might make it easier for clinicians to clean up adhesives on the enamel surface after debonding Forty r and omly selected patients had brackets bonded on one side of the of the maxillary labial segment with glass ionomer cement . Teeth on the opposite side were bonded with a resin adhesive . Teeth were assessed for decalcification pretreatment , at debond , and at review using a st and ardized photographic technique and a modified DDE index . The mean number of teeth affected by decalcification and the mean extent of decalcification per tooth increased during the treatment period , but from debond to review both of these measurements decreased for teeth bonded with either material (p)<0.01 , t-test ) . Decalcification appears to become less severe posttreatment , but does not appear to be significantly affected during 12 to 18 months of orthodontic treatment by bonding with glass ionomer cement . Dietary and other environmental factors , including fluoride preparations , may be of greater importance in the prevention of decalcification during fixed appliance therapy A new self-curing ( chemically cured ) resin-modified glass-ionomer cement , Fuji Ortho ( GC International ) , is based on the technology of hybrid glass-ionomer restorative material s and features chemical adhesion to tooth structure and long-term fluoride release . This article describes a 12-month clinical evaluation of  Fuji Ortho for the direct bonding of orthodontic ( metal ) brackets with System 1 + ( Ormco Corp. ) as a control . Three failures of Fuji Ortho occurred from a sample of 60 ( 5 % ) , with five failures of the composite resin from a sample of 60 ( 8.3 % ) . No statistical significance was seen between these results . Fuji Ortho is a satisfactory adhesive for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets where there are no occlusal interferences This study evaluated the clinical performance of a new resin modified glass ionomer cement , Geristore ( Den-Mat Corp. , Santa Maria , Calif. ) , for the bonding of orthodontic brackets and its effect on certain caries-associated microorganisms . This cement has been shown to possess increased mechanical properties and long-term fluoride release . There were 716 brackets bonded in 40 patients ( 17 males and 23 females ) , with a split-mouth technique and a composite resin , Phase II ( Reliance , Itasca , III . )  , as a control . Bond failures were recorded up to 1 year . Plaque scores and plaque sample s were taken from the area of the bonding adhesive in 20 patients , before , at 1 week , and 5 months after the placement of brackets . The plaque sample s were investigated for the presence of Streptococcus mutans and lactobacilli . The overall bond failure rate was found to be 8.9 % for Geristore and 3.1 % for Phase II ( p < 0.05 ) . Labially , there was no significant difference ( p > 0.05 ) in bond failure rate : 3.8 % for Geristore and 1.7 % for Phase II . The proportions of S. mutans and lactobacilli in plaque taken from around Geristore cement were reduced at 1 week and 5 months , when compared with Phase II resin , and this reduction was statistically significant ( p < 0.05 ) at 1 week . Results of this study suggest that Geristore may be of use in the labial segments , especially in caries prone patients , in whom demineralization at debond may present an esthetic and restorative problem several years after treatment PURPOSE Enamel demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets is one of the risks associated with orthodontic treatment . Glass ionomer cements have been shown to decrease enamel demineralization adjacent to brackets and b and s but do not exhibit bond strengths comparable to resin composites . The purpose of this in vitro study was to compare a fluoride-releasing resin composite versus a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for inhibition of enamel demineralization surrounding orthodontic brackets . METHODS Forty-five teeth were r and omly assigned to 3 groups of 15 teeth . Fifteen were bonded with Concise ( 3 M ) , a non-fluoride-releasing resin composite ( control ) ; 15 teeth were bonded with Light Bond ( Reliance ) , a fluoride-releasing resin composite ; and 15 teeth were bonded with Fuji Ortho LC ( GC Corporation ) , a resin-modified glass ionomer cement . The teeth were placed in an artificial caries solution to create lesions . Following sectioning of the teeth in a buccolingual direction , polarized light microscopy was utilized to evaluate enamel demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket . The area of the lesion was measured 100 microns from the orthodontic bracket and bonding agent . RESULTS MANOVA ( P < .0001 ) and Duncan 's test ( P < .05 ) indicated the resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( Fuji Ortho LC ) and the fluoride-releasing resin composite ( Light Bond ) had significantly less adjacent enamel demineralization than the non-fluoride-releasing resin composite control . However , there was no significant difference between the resin-modified glass ionomer cement and the fluoride-releasing resin composite . CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of this in vitro study , it can be concluded that Fuji Ortho LC and Light Bond exhibit significant inhibition of adjacent demineralization compared to the non-fluoride-releasing control The aim of this study was to compare , by shear testing , the bond strengths after 1 and 24 hours of a light-cured resin ( Enlight ) and a light-cured glass ionomer cement GIC ( Fuji Ortho LC )  using various polymerization lamps ( halogen , high performance halogen , xenon , and diode ) for the direct bonding of brackets . The self-curing resin ( Concise ) was used as the control . The analysis was carried out using the SPSS program . For group comparison purpose s , the single factor variance analysis ( ANOVA ) and the post-hoc test ( Tukey 's HSD ) were used . The level of significance was established at P < 0.05 . When comparing two mean values the t-test for independent r and om sample s was employed . All polymerization lamps achieved the minimum bond strength of 5 - 8 MPa . With Enlight LV , bond strength was dependent on curing time ( the halogen lamp achieved the highest bond strength of 10.0 MPa , P < 0.001 , with a curing time of 40 seconds . The other lamps showed similar results ) and on the mode of cure ( the highest bond strength values were achieved by four-sided curing , P= 0.04 ) . Fuji Ortho LC , on the other h and , was independent of the duration of light curing and the type of lamp used . The bond strengths of the resin-modified glass ionomer cement ( RMGIC ) were similar to or somewhat higher than those achieved with light-cured composite resin ( P = 0.039 ) when lamps with short polymerization times were used , but were significantly lower ( P < 0.001 ) when compared with the self-curing composite adhesive . After 24 hours , the bond strengths of all adhesives showed a significant increase : Enlight 19 per cent , Fuji Ortho LC 6.6 per cent , Concise 16 per cent . Bond failure occurred for Enlight at the bracket-composite resin adhesive interface in 90 per cent and with Concise in 57 per cent . However , Fuji Ortho LC showed far more cohesive and mixed failures , indicating an improved bond between bracket and cement Glass ionomer orthodontic adhesives cause less enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic appliance treatment than do traditional resin-based products . An in vivo r and omized clinical trial was performed comparing the clinical performance of a resin-modified glass ionomer ( RMGI ) adhesive with a no-mix , resin-based ( the control ) adhesive over a 12-month period . The split-mouth technique was used to analyze bracket retention , bracket failure causes , and mode of failure for both adhesives in 61 patients .  Bracket-failure rates were 10 % for the RMGI and 4 % for the resin-based adhesive . Both adhesives had 4 times more bracket failures when opposing occlusion was present . The resin-based product demonstrated a higher proportion of resin-to-enamel adhesive failures than did the RMGI . Compared with the resin-based adhesive , the RMGI-bracketed teeth showed improved clinical performance , no enamel surface loss , less enamel demineralization , and faster adhesive removal . However , the RMGI had a 2.6 times greater bracket-failure rate than did the resin-based product Glass  polyalkenoate ( ionomer ) cements have the unique properties to physicochemically bond to enamel and base metals , and to leach fluoride over prolonged periods . These cements are hybrids of silicate and polycarboxylate cements and , like the silicate cements , retain a cariostatic action on adjacent enamel . This article reports on a 12-month clinical trial of a  glass ionomer cement  for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets compared with a st and ard composite bonding adhesive . This study shows a significant difference in failure rates of direct-bonded orthodontic brackets cemented with a thick mix of Fuji I glass polyalkenoate cement ( 20 % ) compared with System I+ composite bonding resin ( 5 % ) Glass polyalkenoate cements have the unique properties of physicochemically bonding to enamel and base metals and to leach fluoride over prolonged periods . These cements have been modified to provide a dual setting with both light activation and chemical cure to produce a more rapid set . This article reports a 12-month clinical trial of a light-activated glass polyalkenoate cement for the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets , compared with a st and ard composite bonding adhesive . There was no significant difference in failure rates of direct bonded orthodontic brackets cemented with Fuji II LC light-activated glass polyalkenoate cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) ( 3.3 % ) compared with System I+ composite bonding resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , Calif. ) ( 1.6 % ) The purpose s of this investigation were to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets when bonded onto : a ) dry teeth and b ) teeth soaked with saliva . The two bonding agents were compared using a split-mouth design . In that , both systems were used for direct bonding of stainless steel brackets in every patient . Thirty-eight consecutive patients with fixed appliances were followed for a period of 12 months . The patients were r and omly divided into two groups : group A ( 11 patients ) and group B ( 27 patients ) . In group A , the performance of 220 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 110 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial Co. , Tokyo , Japan ) onto dry teeth , and 110 bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco Corp. , Glendora , CA ) . In group B , the performance of 540 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 270 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho onto teeth soaked with saliva , and 270 bonded with System 1 + . In group A , GC Fuji Ortho recorded an overall failure rate ( 34.5 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than System 1 + ( 9 % ) when applied onto completely dry teeth . Conversely , in group B , no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates of the two bonding agents were found when GC Fuji Ortho was used on teeth soaked with saliva . It was concluded , therefore , that GC Fuji Ortho shows clinical ly acceptable bond strengths when bonded onto moist teeth , but not when used on dry enamel . Both bonding agents failed mostly at the enamel/adhesive interface , without causing any enamel damage The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical performance of a resin-reinforced self-cured glass ionomer cement to a st and ard composite resin in a split mouth design , by using both systems for direct bonding of orthodontic stainless steel brackets in every patient . Forty eight patients ( 34 females and 14 males , of which 29 were adults > 18 years of age ) with fixed appliances were followed for a mean period of 10 months ( range 4 - 16 months ) . The performance of 864 stainless steel brackets was evaluated : 404 brackets were bonded with GC Fuji Ortho glass ionomer cement ( GC Industrial , Tokyo , Japan ) onto teeth soaked with water , and 460 were bonded with System 1 + composite resin ( Ormco , Glendora , CA ) . System 1 + recorded an overall failure rate ( 18.2 % ) significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho ( 7.9 % ) . There were no statistically significant differences ( p > 0.05 ) between the failure rates in the upper and lower arches with either material . Both in the upper and lower arches , System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho . When the bonding performance of the six anterior teeth was compared with first and second premolars , no statistically significant differences were found ( p > 0.05 ) between bonding agents in either arch . System 1 + exhibited a failure rate significantly higher ( p < 0.05 ) than GC Fuji Ortho , both in the anterior and posterior segments . Both bonding agents failed mainly at the enamel-adhesive interface , without causing any damage to the enamel Decalcification during orthodontic treatment is a serious problem . A glass ionomer agent is now available to bond orthodontic brackets as an alternative to composite resins . This prospect i ve study was a clinical trial to determine if a glass ionomer bonding system ( Fuji Ortho LC ) decreases the incidence of decalcification without increasing the amount of bonding failures . A prospect i ve clinical trial with 16 patients encompassing a total of 298 teeth was conducted . The 149 control teeth were bonded with a light-cured composite resin ( Reliance Light Bond ) whereas the 149 experimental teeth were bonded with the light-cured glass ionomer agent .  Patients were followed for a period of 12 to 14 months . All teeth were evaluated for breakage ( bonding failure rate ) , and all maxillary anterior teeth ( 96 ) were evaluated for decalcification on a grade d scale . The glass ionomer failure rate was 24.8 % , and was higher than the composite resin failure rate of 7.4 % ( P < .001 ) . There were more glass ionomer bond failures in 12 of 16 patients ( P < .001 ) . Enamel decalcification was similar in the 2 bonding systems The clinical performance of a glass ionomer cement for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets was compared with a composite resin routinely used in this procedure . Brackets were bonded , using both material s , in alternate quadrants of 16 patients of the Orthodontic Clinic of the State University of Rio de Janeiro . A total of 225 teeth , 112 in the glass ionomer cement group and 113 in the composite group , were tested .  Bond failure frequencies were recorded for 12 months , and chi-square statistical test was carried out comparing the failure rates of the material s. The composite showed a statistically significant lower failure rate ( 7.96 % ) than the glass ionomer cement ( 50.89 % ) , regardless of the dental arch tested . Although the glass ionomer cement presents important properties not observed in the composite , it is necessary to increase its cohesive strength to permit its clinical use for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets
The current evidence suggests no difference between the types of material s after 12 months but favours composite resin adhesives after a > 14-month period .
The clinical relevance of this study is that RM-GIC may have the same clinical debonding ( failure ) rate as composite resin adhesives after 1 year when used for bonding of orthodontic brackets
The aim of this systematic review was to establish whether the clinical debonding ( failure ) rates of orthodontic brackets bonded either with resin-modified glass ionomer ( RM-GIC ) or with composite resin adhesive  are the same .