Comparison of Bracket Failure with Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-Based Adhesive: Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Resin-Based Adhesive

Abdul Jabbar; Maheen Aqeel; Ashique Hussain Sahito; Muhammad Siddique Khatri; Syed Rizwan Shah; Junaid Tariq

doi:10.54393/pjhs.v5i09.1868

Authors

Abdul Jabbar Department of Orthodontics, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Maheen Aqeel Department of Orthodontics, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Ashique Hussain Sahito Department of Periodontology, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Muhammad Siddique Khatri Department of Orthodontics, Liaquat University of Medical and Health Sciences, Jamshoro, Pakistan
Syed Rizwan Shah Specialized Dental Center, Gurayyat General Hospital, Al Jouf Health Cluster, Ministry of Health, Saudia Arabia
Junaid Tariq Department of Orthodontics, Baqai Dental College, Karachi, Pakistan

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.54393/pjhs.v5i09.1868

Keywords:

Dental Composite, Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement, Orthodontic Bracket

Abstract

A high strength of bonding materials is needed for orthodontic attachments to sustain therapeutic forces and patients’ masticatory habits. Objectives: To compare the bond strength of the resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and resign based adhesive system which leads to bracket failure in orthodontic treatment (failure to bracket attachment) for the duration of 6 months at the a tertiary care hospital at Hyderabad, Sindh Pakistan. Methods: This comparative cross-sectional study involved 30 patients, each with 20 brackets, using non-probability sampling. Participants were between the ages of 13 and 30 with fully erupted permanent teeth and mild skeletal discrepancies. Quadrants were randomized, and 120 attachments were placed in total, split evenly between the two types of materials. The study involved bonding orthodontic brackets using either composite resin or RMGIC. The teeth were prepared and cleansed, and the brackets were bonded following standard procedures. Patients were monitored each month for six months (six visits) to check for any debonded or missing brackets. Chi-Square test was run to compare bracket failure between two groups. Results: There were significant differences in bracket failure rates between the composite and RMGIC sides. Composite had a lower failure rate, with 90% of brackets remaining intact compared to 63.3% with RMGIC (p=0.04). Gender comparisons showed both male and female participants experienced more failures with RMGIC than with composite, with p-values of 0.039 and 0.038, respectively. Conclusion: RMGIC could not withstand the forces experienced during fixed appliance treatment as effectively as composite resin, resulting in a higher debonding rate.

References

Toz Ertop M, Cicek O, Erener H, Ozkalayci N, Demir Cicek B, Comert F. Evaluation of the Demineralization Development around Different Types of Orthodontic Brackets. Materials. 2023 Jan; 16(3): 2-13. doi: 10.3390/ma16030984.

Benson PE, Parkin N, Dyer F, Millett DT, Germain P. Fluorides for Preventing Early Tooth Decay (Demineralised Lesions) During Fixed Brace Treatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2019; 2019(11): 1-67. doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd003809.pub4.

Dudás C, Czumbel LM, Kiss S, et al. Clinical bracket failure rates between different bonding techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2023;45(2):175-185. doi:10.1093/ejo/cjac050

Lamper T, Ilie N, Huth KC, Rudzki I, Wichelhaus A, Paschos E. Self-Etch Adhesives for the Bonding of Orthodontic Brackets: Faster, Stronger, Safer? Clinical Oral Investigations. 2014 Jan; 18: 313-9. doi: 10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2.

Sardana D, Manchanda S, Ekambaram M, Yang Y, McGrath CP, Yiu CK. Effectiveness of Self-Applied Topical Fluorides Against Enamel White Spot Lesions from Multi-Bracketed Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Systematic Review. European Journal of Orthodontics. 2019 Nov; 41(6): 661-8. doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjz015.

Palmer JA, Mang T, Tabbaa S, Al-Jewair T. Analysis of Enamel Surface Roughness After Different Adhesive Removal Techniques for Orthodontic Bracket Debonding. Lasers in Dental Science. 2018 Jun; 2: 95-101. doi: 10.1007/s41547-018-0024-5.

Sawant S, Gulve N, Nehete A, Aher S. Comparative Evaluation Of Bond Failure Rate Of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded With Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement And Composite- A Randomized Control Trial: Original Research. IJOrthoR. 2023 Oct;14(3):30-9. doi.org/10.56501/intjorthodrehabil.v14i3.882

Fricker JP. Therapeutic Properties of Glass‐Ionomer Cements: Their Application to Orthodontic Treatment. Australian Dental Journal. 2022 Mar; 67(1): 12-20. doi: 10.1111/adj.12888.

Benson PE, Alexander-Abt J, Cotter S, Dyer FM, Fenesha F, Patel A et al. Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Vs Composite for Orthodontic Bonding: A Multicenter, Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2019 Jan; 155(1): 10-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.09.005.

Shaik JA, Reddy RK, Bhagyalakshmi K, Shah MJ, Madhavi O, Ramesh SV. In vitro Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded with Different Adhesives. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Apr-June;9(2):289-292. doi:10.4103/ccd.ccd_15_18

Boudrot M, François P, Abdel-Gawad S, Attal JP, Dantagnan CA. Shear Bond Strength of a RMGIC for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding to Enamel. BDJ open. 2024 Jan; 10(1): 2-7. doi: 1038/s41405-023-00181-5.

Ghoubril V, Ghoubril J, Abboud M, Bou Sakr T, Hardan L, Khoury E. Eighteen-Month Orthodontic Bracket Survival Rate with the Conventional Bonding Technique versus RMGIC and V-Prep: A Split-Mouth RCT. Coatings. 2023 Aug; 13(8): 2-11. doi: 10.3390/coatings13081447.

Sharma P, Valiathan A, Arora A, Agarwal S. A Comparative Evaluation of The Retention of Metallic Brackets Bonded with Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement under Different Enamel Preparations: A Pilot Study. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry. 2013 Apr; 4(2): 140-6. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000700002.

Davidson CL. Advances in Glass-Ionomer Cements. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2006; 14: 3-9. doi: 10.1590/s1678-77572006000700002.

Barik AK and Duggal R. Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release from Chemically Cured and Light-Cured Orthodontic Bonding Agents and Surface Alteration of Enamel: An In Vitro Study. Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society. 2020 Jul; 54(3):233-9. doi: 10.1177/03015742209375.

Vicente A, Rodríguez-Lozano FJ, Martínez-Beneyto Y, Jaimez M, Guerrero-Gironés J, Ortiz-Ruiz AJ. Biophysical and Fluoride Release Properties of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Enriched with Bioactive Glasses. Symmetry. 2021; 13(3):494. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym13030494

Sidhu SK and Nicholson JW. A Review of Glass-Ionomer Cements for Clinical Dentistry. Journal of Functional Biomaterials. 2016 Jun; 7(3): 2-15. doi: 10.3390/jfb7030016.

Justus R, Cubero T, Ondarza R, Morales F. A New Technique with Sodium Hypochlorite to Increase Bracket Shear Bond Strength of Fluoride-Releasing Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements: Comparing Shear Bond Strength of Two Adhesive Systems with Enamel Surface Deproteinization Before Etching. In Seminars in Orthodontics. 2010 Mar; 16(1): 66-75.doi: 10.1053/j.sodo.2009.12.006.

Elsaka SE, Hammad SM, Ibrahim NF. Evaluation of Stresses Developed in Different Bracket-Cement-Enamel Systems Using Finite Element Analysis with In Vitro Bond Strength Tests. Progress in Orthodontics. 2014 Dec; 15: 1-8. doi: 10.1186/s40510-014-0033-1.

Grauer D. Quality in Orthodontics: The Role of Customized Appliances. Journal of Esthetic and Restorative Dentistry. 2021 Jan; 33(1): 253-8. doi: 10.1111/jerd.12702.