Original Article

Microleakage beneath Ceramic and Metal Brackets Bonded with a Conventional and an Antibacterial Adhesive System
Neslihan Arhuna; Ayca Armanb; Sevi Burcak Cehrelic; Serdar Arkand; Erdem Karabulute; Kamran Gulsahf
ABSTRACT Objective: To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 Transbond XT metal bracket, group 2 Transbond XT ceramic bracket, group 3 Clearl Protect Bond ceramic bracket, and group 4 Clearl Protect Bond metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesivetooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A signicant difference was observed among all groups (P .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited signicantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearl Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearl Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive. Conclusions: Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions. KEY WORDS: Ceramic bracket; Metal bracket; Microleakage; Antibacterial INTRODUCTION The continuous development of adhesive-dentistry technology has led orthodontists to adopt these innoAssistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. b Assistant Professor, Department of Orthodontics, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. c Assistant Professor, Department of Pedodontics, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. d Resident, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. e Resident, Department of Biostatistics, Hacettepe University Faculty of Medicine, Ankara, Turkey. f Resident, Department of Endodontics, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara, Turkey. Corresponding author: Neslihan Arhun, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Baskent University Faculty of Dentistry, 11. Sok No. 26, Ankara, Bahcelievler 06490, Turkey (e-mail: neslihan@baskent.edu.tr).
a

Accepted: November 2005. Submitted: October 2005. 2006 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006 1028

vations and add them to their armamentarium. Toothconserving and time-saving adhesive methods of retaining orthodontic attachments are replacing traditional methods and procedures. Although the advantages are revolutionary, a signicant caries risk under and in the vicinity of the multibonded appliances is of concern.1,2 It is reported that an average of two of the three teeth bonded with either of the bonding materials were affected by some form of enamel opacity after orthodontic treatment, with the most common type identied as a diffuse opacity. The recorded opacities covered an average of less than one-third of the labial surface3,4 and may occur in 296% of orthodontic patients.5 Bacteria in the dental plaque surrounding orthodontic appliances produce organic acids and lead to enamel demineralization.1,6 Demineralization (decalcication) occurs when the pH of the oral environment favors diffusion of calcium and phosphate ions out of enamel.6 The references cited above focus mostly on decalDOI: 10.2319/101805-368

MICROLEAKAGE BENEATH BRACKETS TABLE 1. Materials and Application Procedures* Material Clearl Protect Bond Component Primer Bond Chemical Composition MDP, MDPB, HEMA, water, hydrophilic dimethacrylate MDP, Bis-GMA, HEMA, microller, surface-treated sodium uoride 35% orthophosphoric acid Bisphenol A diglycydil, ether dimetacrylate, triethylene glycol, dimethacrylate, quartz silica Bisphenol A diglycidyl, ether dimetacrylate, bisphenol A Bis (2-hydroxyethyl ether), dimetacryate Lot No. 00012A 00020A Steps of Application

1029

Apply and leave for 20 s, air dry Apply bond and light cure for 10 s Apply and leave for 15 s, rinse thoroughly, air dry Apply a thin coat on enamel

Unitek Etching Gel Transbond XT primer

Acid Primer

5EM 4BX

Transbond XT LightCure Adhesive

Paste

4MF

Light cure for 20 s

* MDP indicates muramyldipeptide; MDPB, 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpridinium bromide; HEMA, hydroxyethyl methacrylate; and Bis-GMA, bisphenol A diglycidylether methacrylate.

cications and white spots around the brackets, not under the brackets.36 Although the area around the brackets is critical, the area under the brackets also needs attention. James et al7 were the rst to point out increased risk of decalcication caused by microleakage around orthodontic brackets. The polymerization shrinkage of the adhesive material may cause gaps between the adhesive material and enamel surface and lead to microleakage, thus facilitating the formation of white-spot lesions under the bracket surface area.7 Although there are not many studies on the microleakage and its carious effects on the enamel, there have been many efforts to overcome the demineralization process around the orthodontic brackets. Fluoride is known to inhibit lesion development during xed appliance treatment and to enhance remineralization after treatment.1,8 Daily use of a uoride rinse combined with oral hygiene instruction can lead to a signicant reduction in decalcication,6 the cariostatic effect of topical uoride treatment resulting primarily from calcium uoride formation.8 Unfortunately, patient cooperation with home-use topical uoride agents and maintenance of optimum oral hygiene levels is frequently inadequate.9 As a result, the arrival of uoridereleasing adhesive systems for bracket bonding has attracted considerable interest, offering a means of uoride delivery adjacent to bracket-enamel interface and independent of patient cooperation.10,11 However, the ability of these materials to reduce decalcication clinically remains equivocal.1012 Remineralization by release of uoride is important, but the antibacterial effect is another important property because inactivation of bacteria means a direct strategy to eliminate the cause of dental caries.13 Antimicrobial agents such as chlorhexidine have been suggested to prevent decalcication caused by xed

appliances for such circumstances.1416 Nowadays, bioactive adhesive systems with antibacterial effects or intensive remineralization ability are considered to be benecial and capable of producing superior clinical performances.17 Recently, a uoride-releasing antibacterial bonding agent has been developed by combining the physical advantages of dental-adhesive technology and antibacterial effect.18,19 The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine and compare the microleakage under both ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a recently developed uoride-releasing, antibacterial, light-cured self-etch adhesive system and an acid-etching, conventional, light-cured adhesive system. MATERIALS AND METHODS Forty caries-free and intact human premolars readily available and extracted for orthodontic purposes were collected, randomly separated into four equal groups, and stored in distilled water. Teeth were cleaned and polished with pumice and rubber cups for 10 seconds and received the following surface-preparation and adhesive-application procedures according to the manufacturers directions (Table 1): Group 1. An acid-etching adhesive system metal bracket: Transbond XT Primer (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) Transbond XT Light-Cure Adhesive paste metal bracket (Ormco Series 2000; rst and second bicuspid with hook, part No. 3031511, lot No. 05F788F, Ormco, Orange, Calif) Group 2. An acid-etching adhesive system ceramic bracket: Transbond XT Primer Transbond XT Light-Cure Adhesive paste ceramic bracket (Mystique, reference kit No. 0053110, lot No. 1104, GAC International Inc, Bohemia, NY) Group 3. A uoride-releasing, antibacterial, selfAngle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006

1030

ARHUN, ARMAN, CEHRELI, ARKAN, KARABULUT, GULSHI

bracket-adhesive and adhesive-tooth interfaces was obtained by calculating the mean score of incisal and gingival scores. Statistical evaluation of microleakage scores among the test groups was performed by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction with signicance set at P .05. RESULTS All the groups exhibited microleakage between either the adhesive-enamel interface or the bracket-adhesive interface. Although not statistically signicant, metal brackets generally represented higher microleakage scores compared with ceramic brackets between a bracket-adhesive-tooth complex regardless of the adhesive system used. When adhesive-enamel interface microleakage was considered, there was no statistical signicance between the overall evaluation; however, a signicant difference was observed between group 3 (Clearl Protect Bond ceramic bracket) and group 4 (Clearl Protect Bond metal bracket) only at the gingival side (P .022) (Table 2). The evaluation of microleakage between the adhesive and the bracket revealed that metal brackets (groups 1 and 4) showed statistically more microleakage compared with ceramic brackets (groups 2 and 3) (P .05) regardless of the bonding agent from all aspects (Table 3). Figures 2 and 3 show no leakage and leakage under metal brackets, and Figures 4 and 5 show no leakage and leakage under ceramic brackets. DISCUSSION For the restorative dentistry clinics, microleakage is the seeping and leaking of uids and bacteria between the tooth or restoration junction and interface. Microleakage increases the likelihood of recurrent caries and postoperative sensitivity.20 From the orthodontic point of view, microleakage presents the likelihood of formation of white-spot lesions on the enamel at the adhesive-enamel interface. Expansion and contraction occur when the teeth are heated and cooled by the ingestion of hot or cold foods. If the coefcient of thermal expansion for a restorative material does not match that of the teeth, the teeth and material expand and contract at different rates. Repeated expansion and contraction of teeth and restorative materials at different rates results in uids being sucked in and pushed out at the margins of a restoration. This phenomenon is called percolation.20 In this research, thermocycling and aging procedures were carried out to mimic percolation, as our hypothesis was based on the microleakage after some service life in the mouth. The linear thermal coefcients of expansion of enamel and ceramic or metal brackets and the adhe-

Figure 1. Scoring criteria for microleakage values.

etching adhesive system ceramic bracket: Clearl Protect Bond (Kuraray Dental, Osaka, Japan) Transbond XT Light-Cure Adhesive paste ceramic bracket Group 4. A uoride-releasing, antibacterial, selfetching adhesive system metal bracket: Clearl Protect Bond Transbond XT Light-Cure Adhesive paste metal bracket Specimens were stored in distilled water for 4 weeks at 37 C, after which thermal cycling in deionized water was performed at 5 2 C to 55 2 C for 500 cycles with a dwell time of 30 seconds and a transfer time of 10 seconds. Before dye penetration, the apices were sealed with sticky wax and the specimens were coated with two consecutive layers of nail varnish up to 1 mm from bracket margins. Specimens were then immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution (Wako Pure Chemical Industry, Osaka, Japan) for 24 hours. After a thorough rinsing with distilled water, the samples were air dried and embedded in epoxy resin (Struers, Copenhagen, Denmark). Four parallel longitudinal sections were made through the occlusal surfaces with a low-speed diamond saw (Isomet, Buehler, Lake Bluff, IL) in the bucco-lingual direction. Two blinded, calibrated researchers examined all the sections under a stereomicroscope (Wild Type 308700, Heerbruug, Switzerland) at 16 magnication. Each section was scored from both incisal and gingival margins to the brackets between both the bracket-adhesive interface and the adhesive-enamel interface. Scoring was made according to the following criteria (Figure 1): 0 no dye penetration between the bracket-adhesive or the adhesive-enamel interface, 1 dye penetration restricted to 1 mm of the bracketadhesive or adhesive-enamel interface, 2 dye penetration into the inner half (2 mm) of the bracket-adhesive or adhesive-enamel interface, 3 dye penetration into 3 mm of the bracket-adhesive or adhesiveenamel interface. The microleakage score of each tooth regarding
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006

MICROLEAKAGE BENEATH BRACKETS TABLE 2. Comparison of the Microleakege Scores Between Adhesive and Enamel Surfaces From Incisal-Gingival Sides and the Overall Evaluation by Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mann-Whitney U-Test With Bonferroni Correctiona Variables (Mean Group 1 2 3 4 Incisal 1.30 1.00 0.97 1.53
2

1031
TABLE 3. Comparison of the Microleakege Scores Between Bracket and Adhesive Surfaces From Incisal-Gingival Sides and the Overall Evaluation by Kruskal-Wallis Test and Mann-Whitney U-Test With Bonferroni Correctiona Variables (Mean Overall 1.302 1.008 0.927 1.722
2

SD) Group 1 2 3 4 Incisal 2.31 0.69 0.85 2.36

2

SD) Overall 2.25 0.62 0.81 2.34

2

Gingival 1.30 1.01 0.89 1.92

2

Gingival 2.19 0.55 0.77 2.32

2

0.576 0.636 0.493 0.542 4.316

0.616 0.526 0.479 0.726 7.866

0.5668 0.5548 0.4064 0.5796 7.519 1 1 2 3

0.880 0.626 0.513 0.676 17.654

0.823 0.716 0.553 0.761 18.337

0.821 0.671 0.509 0.718 18.450 ***

Multiple-Group Comparisons 1 1 2 3 and and and and 2 4 3 4 and and and and 2 4 3 4

Multiple-Group Comparisons ** ***

**

**

**

*P .05; ** P .01; *** P .001. a Signicance was determined at a probability value of P .05. Note that group 1 and 3 and group 2 and 4 are not included in the table because they are uncomparable with two independent variables.

*P .05; ** P .01; *** P .001. a Signicance was determined at a probability value of P .05. Note that group 1 and 3 and group 2 and 4 are not included in the table because they are uncomparable with two independent variables.

sive systems do not match closely (ie, for resin composites 2055 ppm/ C, stainless steel bracket for 316L stainless steel 16 ppm/ C, and enamel 12 ppm/ C).21,22 Metal brackets contract and expand more than ceramic brackets, enamel, or the adhesive systems, producing microgaps between the bracket and the adhesive system and causing leaking of oral uids and bacteria beneath the brackets. Several studies have shown that ceramic brackets produce signicantly stronger bond strength compared with conventional metal brackets.2325 Increased bond strength with ceramic brackets resulted in bond failure at the enamel surface rather than at the bracket-adhesive interface, resulting in more enamel fractures after debonding.2528 This increased strength and difculty in debonding for ceramic brackets may be attributed to the close adhesion of the ceramic bracket to the adhesive in the absence of microleakage. Similarly, the weaker bond strength of metal brackets may be attributed to relatively more microleakage between the bracket and the adhesive.

Figure 2. No microleakage under a metal bracket. Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006

1032

ARHUN, ARMAN, CEHRELI, ARKAN, KARABULUT, GULSHI

Figure 3. Microleakage under a metal bracket.

Figure 5. Microleakage under a ceramic bracket.

Figure 4. No microleakage under a ceramic bracket.

Several factors affect the bond strength of brackets, such as the adhesive system used, composite composition, photopolymerization type, and exposure time. Although not evidence based in orthodontics, microleakage may also contribute to the bond strength. In restorative-dentistry literature, numerous studies address the effect of microleakage on durability of bond
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006

strength29,30; however, James et al7 could not demonstrate any correlation between microleakage and bond strength. Microleakage scores obtained from the incisal and gingival margins of the brackets demonstrated signicant differences, implying increased microleakage in the gingival side. This may be related with the surface curvature anatomy, which may result in relatively thicker adhesive at the gingival margin. Studies in restorative dentistry have demonstrated that curing composites causes polymerization shrinkage and microleakage.31,32 Polymerization shrinkage also varies from composite to composite and depends on the percentage of ller, the diluents, the percentage of the monomer conversion in the specic composite resin, and the photopolymerization type.33,34 In restorative dentistry, composite resin is placed in volume of cavity preparation, and curing can create excessive shrinkage and gap formation along the compositepreparation interface. In contrast, orthodontic adhesive layers are very thin, and there is adhesive at the edges of the bracket to absorb some shrinkage. Because the bracket is free oating, the shrinkage can pull the bracket closer to the enamel.35 Therefore, in orthodontic applications, polymerization shrinkage and subsequent microleakage is less of a concern than it is in restorative dentistry.7 Miyazaki et al36 showed that polymerization shrinkage increases as the ller content decreases. With a ller content of about 10%, Clearl Protect Bond is considered a lled adhesive. Filled low-viscosity resins

MICROLEAKAGE BENEATH BRACKETS

1033 type, highlighting the importance of microleakage beneath brackets. Metal brackets exhibited more microleakage than did ceramic brackets, particularly at the bracket-adhesive interface. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Murat Demirhanoglu and Ibrahim Ince for their help with this research.

are thought to have a strain capacity sufcient to relieve stresses between the shrinking composite restoration and the rigid tooth substrate, thereby improving the conservation of bond.37 However, no statistical signicance was observed between the microleakage values of conventional adhesive system and the Clearl Protect Bond. The antibacterial effects of adhesive systems indicate the inhibition of caries formation, especially along the enamel margins.38,39 Various attempts were made to minimize white-spot lesion formation during orthodontic treatment, including the use of adhesive systems containing uoride or an antibacterial agent.4042 However, if microleakage beneath brackets cannot be impeded, inactivation of bacteria caused by microleakage will be a direct strategy to eradicate the cause of white-spot lesions and therefore caries formation. The second experimental adhesive system, Clearl Protect Bond, is a recently developed self-etching adhesive system containing 12-methacryloyloxydodecylpyridinium bromide (MDPB), which is an antibacterial monomer incorporated in antibacterial adhesives. It causes an electrical imbalance in the bacterial cell wall, leading to cell wall destruction and, ultimately, bacterial death.4345 It has been reported that MDPB copolymerizes with other monomers after curing, and the antibacterial agent is covalently bonded to the polymer network. The immobilized agent does not leach out from the material but acts as a contact inhibitor against the bacteria that attach to the surface.13 Findings concerning in vitro antibacterial activity, bonding ability, cytotoxicity, and pulpal response of MDPB-containing self-etching primer or adhesive have been published.4649 Antibacterial activity of MDPB may not extend around the bracket, unlike its uoride-release effect, but it is effective when bacteria contact the surface after microleakage. This technology is a safe mechanism that allows controllability of the antibacterial agent, MDPB,50 ensuring the immobilization of the antibacterial molecule at the site of therapeutic importance, which is the enamel surface under the bracket in our circumstances. However, further studies are essential to test both the in vivo properties of this material and the effectiveness of the antibacterial and uoride-releasing effects on reduction of the incidence of white-spot lesions. Other factors such as photopolymerization type, ller content, and composite resin type should also be evaluated for microleakage in orthodontics as in restorative dentistry. CONCLUSIONS All the brackets exhibited some amount of microleakage regardless of the adhesive and bracket

REFERENCES
1. OReilly MM, Featherstone JD. Demineralization and remineralization around orthodontic appliances: an in vivo study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1987;92:3340. 2. gaard B. Prevalence of white spot lesions in 19-year-olds. A study on untreated and orthodontically treated persons 5 years after treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96:423427. 3. Nunn JH, Ekanayake L, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Saparamadu KD. Assessment of enamel opacities in children in Sri Lanka and England using a photographic method. Community Dent Health. 1993;10:175188. 4. Nunn JH, Rugg-Gunn AJ, Ekanayake L, Saparamadu KDG. Prevalence of developmental defects of enamel in areas with differing water uoride levels and socioeconomic groups in Sri Lanka and England. Int Dent J. 1994;44:165 173. 5. Mitchell L. Decalcication during orthodontic treatment with xed appliancesan overview. Br J Orthod. 1992;19:199 205. 6. Gorelick L, Geiger AM, Gwinnett AJ. Incidence of white spot formation after bonding and banding. Am J Orthod. 1982; 81:9398. 7. James JW, Miller BH, English JD, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Effects of high speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:555561. 8. gaard B, Rolla G, Arends J, ten Cate JM. Orthodontic appliances and enamel demineralization. Part 2. Prevention and treatment of lesions. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;94:123128. 9. Geiger AM, Gorelick L, Gwinnett AJ. Reducing white spot lesions in orthodontic populations with uoride rinsing. J Dent Res. 1990;69:236. 10. Mitchell L. An investigation into the effects of a uoridereleasing adhesive on the prevalence of enamel surface changes associated with directly bonded orthodontic attachments. Br J Orthod. 1992;19:207214. 11. Turner PJ. The clinical evaluation of a uoride-containing orthodontic bonding material. Br J Orthod. 1993;201:307 313. 12. gaard B, Rezk-Lega F, Ruben J, Arands J. Cariostatic effect and uoride release from a visible light curing adhesive for bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992;101:303307. 13. Imazato S. Antibacterial properties of resin composites and dentin bonding systems. Dent Mater. 2003;19:449457. 14. Bishara SE, Damon PL, Olsen ME, Jakobsen JR. Effect of applying chlorhexidine antibacterial agent on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 1996; 66:313316. 15. Bishara SE, Vonwald L, Zamtua J, Damon PL. Effects of various methods of chlorhexidine application on shear bond
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006

1034
strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114:150 153. Polat O, Uysal T, Karaman AI. Effects of a chlorhexidine varnish on shear bond strength in indirect bonding. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:10361040. Imazato S. Progress of adhesive systems as a cornerstone of minimal intervention dentistry. In: Yoshiyama M, Nishitani Y, Nakabo S, Cox CF, eds. Modern Trends in Adhesive Dentistry. Proceedings of The Adhesive Dentistry Forum of 2001 in Okuyama, Japan. Tokyo, Japan: Kuraray Medical Inc; 2002:113. Bishara SE, Soliman M, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Effect of antimicrobial monomer-containing adhesive on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2005;75: 397399. Eminkahyagil N, Korkmaz Y, Gokalp S, Baseren M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with newly developed antibacterial self etch adhesive. Angle Orthod. 2005;75: 843848. Gladwin M, Bagby M. Clinical Aspects of Dental Materials Theory, Practice, and Cases. Baltimore, Md: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004:4757. Van Noort R. Introduction to Dental Materials. 1st ed. London, UK: Mosby; 1994:5354. Callister WD. Materials Science and Engineering: An Introduction. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1991: 738739. degaard J, Segner D. The use of visible light curing composites in bonding ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97:183193. Gwinnett AJ. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988;93:346348. Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;97:121125. Harris AM, Joseph VP, Rossouw E. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic resins to ceramic and metal brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990;24:725728. Storm ER. Debonding ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod. 1990;24:9194. Viazis AD, Cavanaugh G, Bevis RR. Bond strength of ceramic brackets under shear stress: an in vitro report. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990;98:214221. Celiberti P, Lussi A. Use of a self etching adhesive on previously etched intact enamel and its effect on sealant microleakage and tag formation. J Dent. 2005;33:163171. Kubo S, Yokota H, Sata Y, Hayashi Y. Microleakage of self etching primers after thermal and load cycling. Am J Dent. 2001;14:163169. Ferracane JL, Mittchem JC. Relationship between composite contraction stress and leakage in class V cavities. Am J Dent. 2003;16:239243. Calheiros FC, Sadek FT, Braga RR, Cardoso PE. Polymerization contraction stress of low-shrinkage composites and its correlation with microleakage in class V restorations. J Dent. 2004;32:407412. Burgess JO, DeGoes M, Walker R, Ripps AH. An evaluation

ARHUN, ARMAN, CEHRELI, ARKAN, KARABULUT, GULSHI

16.

34.

17.

35.

36.

18.

37.

19.

38.

20.

39.

21. 22.

40.

41.

23.

42.

24.

43.

25.

44.

26.

45.

27. 28.

46.

29.

47.

48.

30.

31.

49.

32.

50.

33.

of four light-curing units comparing soft and hard curing. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11:125132. Masutani S, Matsuzaki T, Akiyama Y. Study on light cured composite resins: consideration of the continuous volumetric shrinkage of resins during light irradiation. Jpn J Conserv Dent. 1989;32:16051611. Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, Shellhart WC. Rapid curing of bonding composite with a xenon plasma arc light. Am J Orthod Dentfacial Orthop. 2001;119:610616. Miyazaki M, Hinoura K, Onose H, Moore BK. Effect of ller content of light-cured composites on bond strength to bovine dentine. J Dent. 1991;19:301303. Van Meerbeek B, Willems G, Celis JP, Roos JR, Braem M, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. Assessment by nano-indentation of the hardness and elasticity of the resin-dentin bonding area. J Dent Res. 1993;72:14341442. Itota T, Nakabo S, Iwai Y, Konishi N, Nagamine M, Torii Y. Inhibition of articial secondary caries by uoride-releasing adhesives on root dentin. J Oral Rehabil. 2002;29:523527. Han L, Edward C, Okamoto A, Iwaku M. A comparative study of uoride-releasing adhesive resin materials. Dent Mater J. 2002;21:919. gaard B, Larsson E, Henriksson T, Bishara S. Effects of combined application of antimicrobial and uoride varnishes in orthodontic patients. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120:2835. Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Soliman MMA, Warren J. Effects of a new protective sealant on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod. 2005;75:243246. Kawashima M, Nakatsuka K, Okada K, Yamauchi J. Characteristics of a new antibacterial and uoride releasing bonding system. J Dent Res. 2002;81:241. Imazato S, Torii M, Tsuchitani Y, McCabe JF, Russell RR. Incorporation of bacterial inhibitor into resin composite. J Dent Res. 1994;73:14371443. Imazato S, McCabe JF. Inuence of incorporation of antibacterial monomer on curing behavior of a dental resin composite. J Dent Res. 1994;74:16411645. Imazato S, Tarumi H, Kato S, Ebisu S. Water sorption and color stability of composites containing the antibacterial monomer MDPB. J Dent Res. 1999;27:279283. Imazato S, Kinomoto Y, Tarumi H, Ebisu S, Tay FR. Antibacterial activity and bonding characteristics of an adhesive resin containing antibacterial monomer MDPB. Dent Mater. 2003;19:313319. Imazato S, Tarumi H, Ebi N, Ebisu S. Cytotoxic effects of composite restorations employing self etching primers or experimental antibacterial primers. J Dent. 2000;28:6167. Imazato S, Torii Y, Takatsuka T, Inoe K, Ebi N, Ebisu S. Bactericidal effect of dentin primer containing antibacterial monomer methacryloyloxydodecyl-pyridibium bromide (MDPB) aganist bacteria in human carious dentin. J Oral Rehabil. 2001;28:314319. Arhun N, Arman A, Sesen C, Karabulut E, Korkmaz Y, Golkalp S. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with different self etch adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006:000000. Schmaltz G, Ergucu Z, Hiller KA. Effects of dentin on the antibacterial activity of dentin bonding agents. J Endod. 2004;30:352358.

Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 6, 2006