Comparison of the bonding strengths of second- and third-generation light-emitting diode light-curing units.
10.4041/kjod.2016.46.6.364
- Author:
Hee Min LEE
1
;
Sang Cheol KIM
;
Kyung Hwa KANG
;
Na Young CHANG
Author Information
1. Department of Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Wonkwang University, Iksan, Korea.
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Light-emitting diodes light-curing unit;
Shear bond strength
- MeSH:
Adhesives;
Bicuspid;
Ceramics;
Humans;
Plasma;
Tooth
- From:The Korean Journal of Orthodontics
2016;46(6):364-371
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE: With the introduction of third-generation light-emitting diodes (LEDs) in dental practice, it is necessary to compare their bracket-bonding effects, safety, and efficacy with those of the second-generation units. METHODS: In this study, 80 extracted human premolars were randomly divided into eight groups of 10 samples each. Metal or polycrystalline ceramic brackets were bonded on the teeth using second- or third-generation LED light-curing units (LCUs), according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The shear bond strengths were measured using the universal testing machine, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored by assessing the residual resin on the surfaces of debonded teeth using a scanning electron microscope. In addition, curing times were also measured. RESULTS: The shear bond strengths in all experimental groups were higher than the acceptable clinical shear bond strengths, regardless of the curing unit used. In both LED LCU groups, all ceramic bracket groups showed significantly higher shear bond strengths than did the metal bracket groups except the plasma emulation group which showed no significant difference. When comparing units within the same bracket type, no differences in shear bond strength were observed between the second- and third-generation unit groups. Additionally, no significant differences were observed among the groups for the ARI. CONCLUSIONS: The bracket-bonding effects and ARIs of second- and third-generation LED LCUs showed few differences, and most were without statistical significance; however, the curing time was shorter for the second-generation unit.
