Affiliations: [a] Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia | [b] Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia | [c] Department of Cariology, Operative Dentistry and Dental Public Health, Indiana University, Indiana, USA | [d] Department of Epidemiology and Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA | [e] Department of Orthodontics, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, USA
Correspondence:
[*]
Corresponding author: Salem Almoammar, Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Asir - Abha, P.O. Box 960, 61421, Saudi Arabia. E-mail: [email protected]
Abstract: BACKGROUND:Adhesion strength of orthodontic attachments to enamel should be within optimal range to resist occlusal forces and to allow debonding without enamel damage. OBJECTIVE:The present study compared the effect of non-thermal plasma (NTP) and conventional surface treatment on the adhesion strength of orthodontic bracket to enamel. METHODS:A total of 100 premolar teeth were allocated into 5 groups according to the bonding procedure followed: Group 1 (Etch, prime and composite adhesive); Group 2 (Prime and composite adhesive); Group 3 (Glass ionomer cement); Group 4 (NTP, prime and composite adhesive) and Group 5 (NTP and glass ionomer cement). Ten specimens in each group were subjected to artificial aging and the remaining ten specimens served as baseline specimens. Adhesion strength values were recorded after debonding and bond failure types were scored. Water contact angles of the NTP treated and untreated enamel surface were measured. RESULTS:Group 1 specimen demonstrated highest bond strength at baseline (21.5 ± 3.01) and thermocycling (15.8 ± 2.87) and the least values were in Group 2 specimens at baseline (3.9 ± 1.01) and thermocycling (1.6 ± 0.7). Among the experimental (NTP) groups, Group 4 specimens exhibited high adhesion strength at baseline (10.2 ± 1.76) and after thermocycling (9.8 ± 2.15) compared to Group 5 specimens at baseline (10.1 ± 1.05) and thermocycling (6.5 ± 2.19). The water contact angle on untreated enamel surface was 53.1° ± 2.1° as compared to 1.4° ± 0.7° in treated surface. CONCLUSION:Non-thermal plasma (NTP) treatment in conjunction with composite adhesives demonstrated clinically acceptable adhesion strength and was well within the optimal range (7–14 MPa) for enamel bonding.
