Befestigungsmöglichkeiten von Brackets und Attachments in der Kieferorthopädie

Zusammenfassung

Sowohl für die Befestigung von Brackets als auch von Aligner-Attachments stehen verschiedene Materialien und Strategien zur Auswahl. Die Vorbereitung der Schmelz-Oberfläche für die adhäsive Befestigung kann mit Phosphorsäure im Etch and Rinse-Verfahren oder mittels diverser selbstätzender Adhäsive vorgenommen werden. Die Materialien zur Befestigung unterscheiden sich hinsichtlich der Monomermatrix, der Füllkörper und deren Anteile sowie ihres Initiatiorsystems. Brackets können direkt oder indirekt adhäsiv befestigt werden. Attachments für die Behandlung mit Alignern können ein- oder zweiphasig auf die entsprechenden Zähne aufgebracht werden. Ziel dieses Artikels ist es, anhand der aktuellen Literatur einen Überblick über die verschiedenen Materialien und Befestigungsstrategien zu geben.

Abstract

Various resin composite materials and bonding protocols are available for luting of brackets and aligner attachments. Good bonding properties on enamel surfaces can be performed after conditioning with phosphoric acid-based monomers using the etch and rinse protocol or with various self-etching adhesive systems. The resin composite materials used for luting differ in terms of the monomer matrix, the fillers and their quantity as well as their initiation system. Brackets can be luted directly or indirectly. Attachments for treatment with aligners can be bonded in one or two phases. The aim of this article is to provide an overview of the different materials and bonding protocols based on the current literature.

Schlüsselwörter

direkte Bracket-Befestigung - indirekte Bracket-Befestigung - Befestigungskomposite - adhäsive Befestigung

Key words

direct bracket-bonding - indirect bracket-bonding - resin composite cements - luting

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
17. Juni 2020

• Literatur

• 1 Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-853.
• 2 Newman GV. Treatment of a malocclusion with bonded attachments. J N J State Dent Soc 1966; 38: 67-70
• 3 Pamukcu H, Ozsoy OP, Dagalp R. In vitro and in vivo comparison of orthodontic indirect bonding resins: A prospective study. Niger J Clin Pract 2018; 21: 614-623.
• 4 Li Y, Mei L, Wei J. et al. Effectiveness, efficiency and adverse effects of using direct or indirect bonding technique in orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2019; 19: 137.
• 5 Seeliger J, Machoy M, Koprowski R. et al. Enamel Thickness before and after Orthodontic Treatment Analysed in Optical Coherence Tomography. Biomed Res Int 2017; 2017: 8390575.
• 6 Enaia M, Bock N, Ruf S. White-spot lesions during multibracket appliance treatment: A challenge for clinical excellence. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2011; 140: e17-e24.
• 7 Sharma S, Tandon P, Nagar A. et al. A comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with four different orthodontic adhesives. J Orthod Sci 2014; 3: 29-33.
• 8 Reynolds IR. Letter: ‘Composite filling materials as adhesives in orthodonticsʼ. Br Dent J 1975; 138: 83
• 9 O'Brien KD, Watts DC, Read MJ. Light cured direct bonding – is it necessary to use a primer?. Eur J Orthod 1991; 13: 22-26.
• 10 Devatha AB, Lakshmi MN, Kumar NB. et al. A Comparative Study of Shear Bond Strength of Direct Bonding System with and without a Liquid Primer: An In Vitro Study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2019; 11 (Suppl. 03) S515-S522.
• 11 Fleming PS, Johal A, Pandis N. Self-etch primers and conventional acid-etch technique for orthodontic bonding: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 83-94.
• 12 Keim RG, Gottlieb EL, Nelson AH. et al. 2008 JCO study of orthodontic diagnosis and treatment procedures, part 1: results and trends. J Clin Orthod 2008; 42: 625-640
• 13 Horiuch S, Kaneko K, Mori H. et al. Enamel bonding of self-etching and phosphoric acid-etching orthodontic adhesives in simulated clinical conditions: debonding force and enamel surface. Dent Mater J 2009; 28: 419-425.
• 14 Chau C, Campbell PM, Deljavan N. et al. Retention of sealants during orthodontic treatment: an in vitro comparison of two etching protocols. Angle Orthod 2015; 85: 750-756.
• 15 Chu CH, Ou KL, Dong DR. et al. Orthodontic bonding with self-etching primer and self-adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod 2011; 33: 276-281.
• 16 Bakhadher W, Halawany H, Talic N. et al. Factors Affecting the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets – a Review of In Vitro Studies. Acta Medica (Hradec Kralove) 2015; 58: 43-48
• 17 Zope A, Zope-Khalekar Y, Chitko SS. et al. Comparison of Self-Etch Primers with Conventional Acid Etching System on Orthodontic Brackets. J Clin Diagn Res 2016; 10: ZC19-ZC22.
• 18 Sreedhara S, Savakkanavar MB, Rajesh RNG. et al. Effect of Self-etch Primer-adhesive and Conventional Adhesive Systems on the Shear Bond Strength and Bond Failure of Orthodontic Brackets: A Comparative Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16: 130-134
• 19 Korbmacher H, Klocke A, Huck L. et al. Enamel conditioning for orthodontic bonding with a single-step bonding agent. J Orofac Orthop 2002; 63: 463-471.
• 20 Ousehal L, El Aouame A, Rachdy Z. et al. Comparison of the efficacy of a conventional primer and a self-etching primer. Int Orthod 2016; 14: 195-205.
• 21 Alavi S, Ehteshami A. Comparison of shear bond strength and enamel surface changing between the two-step etching and primer and self-etch primer methods in rebonding of orthodontic brackets: An in vitro study. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2019; 16: 239-244
• 22 Andrews LF. The straight-wire appliance, origin, controversy, commentary. J Clin Orthod 1976; 10: 99-114
• 23 Shpack N, Geron S, Floris I. et al. Bracket Placement in Lingual vs Labial Systems and Direct vs Indirect Bonding. Angle Orthod 2007; 77: 509-517.
• 24 Kamak H, Çağlaroğlu M. A problem with the modified and standardized indirect bonding technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2012; 142: 2 author reply 2-3.
• 25 Kaneshima EN, Berger SB, Fernandes TMF. et al. Using UV light for adhesive remnant removal after debonding of orthodontic accessories. Braz Oral Res 2018; 32: e47.
• 26 Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA. et al. A universal direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1972; 62: 236-244
• 27 Grünheid T, Lee MS, Larson BE. Transfer accuracy of vinyl polysiloxane trays for indirect bonding. Angle Orthod 2016; 86: 468-474. doi:10.2319/042415-279.1
• 28 Castilla AE, Crowe JJ, Moses JR. et al. Measurement and comparison of bracket transfer accuracy of five indirect bonding techniques. Angle Orthod 2014; 84: 607-614.
• 29 White LW. A new and improved indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1999; 33: 17-23
• 30 Fortini A, Giuntoli F, Franchi L. A simplified indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 2007; 41: 680-683
• 31 Hodge TM, Dhopatkar AA, Rock WP. et al. A randomized clinical trial comparing the accuracy of direct versus indirect bracket placement. J Orthod 2004; 31: 132-137.
• 32 Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978; 74: 62-78.
• 33 Duarte MEA, Gribel BF, Spitz A. et al. Reproducibility of digital indirect bonding technique using three-dimensional (3D) models and 3D-printed transfer trays. Angle Orthod 2020; 90: 92-99.
• 34 Kim J, Chun Y-S, Kim M. Accuracy of bracket positions with a CAD/CAM indirect bonding system in posterior teeth with different cusp heights. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2018; 153: 298-307
• 35 Oysaed H, Ruyter IE. Water sorption and filler characteristics of composites for use in posterior teeth. J Dent Res 1986; 65: 1315-1318
• 36 Whitehill-Grayson IT. Clinical applications of direct orthodontic bonding systems. Dent Clin North Am 1981; 25: 347-355
• 37 Sunilkumar P, Patil CH B et al. A Comparative Study of the Shear and Tensile Bond Strength using three types of Direct Bonding Adhesives on Stainless Steel Brackets – An In Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2013; 5: 26–29
• 38 Mandall NA, Hickman J, Macfarlane TV. et al. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2018; 4: CD002282
• 39 Galindo HRA, Sadowsky PL, Vlachos C. et al. An in vivo comparison between a visible light-cured bonding system and a chemically cured bonding system. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998; 113: 271-275.
• 40 O'Brien KD, Read MJ, Sandison RJ. et al. A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: an in vivo comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 348-351.
• 41 Thom AR, Cook PA, Isaacson KG, Williams JK. Festsitzende kieferorthopädische Apparaturen. s.l. Thieme; 2000
• 42 Miles PG. Indirect bonding with a flowable light-cured adhesive. J Clin Orthod 2002; 36: 646-647
• 43 Miles PG, Weyant RJ. A comparison of two indirect bonding adhesives. Angle Orthod 2005; 75: 1019-1023
• 44 Ibarra G, Johnson GH, Geurtsen W. et al. Microleakage of porcelain veneer restorations bonded to enamel and dentin with a new self-adhesive resin-based dental cement. Dent Mater 2007; 23: 218-225.
• 45 Gerth HUV, Dammaschke T, Züchner H. et al. Chemical analysis and bonding reaction of RelyX Unicem and Bifix composites – a comparative study. Dent Mater 2006; 22: 934-941.
• 46 Zorzin J, Petschelt A, Ebert J. et al. pH neutralization and influence on mechanical strength in self-adhesive resin luting agents. Dent Mater 2012; 28: 672-679.
• 47 Abo-Hamar SE, Hiller K-A, Jung H. et al. Bond strength of a new universal self-adhesive resin luting cement to dentin and enamel. Clin Oral Investig 2005; 9: 161-167.
• 48 D'Antò V, Muraglie S, Castellano B et al. Influence of Dental Composite Viscosity in Attachment Reproduction: An Experimental in Vitro Study. Materials (Basel). 2019; 12: doi:10.3390/ma12234001
• 49 Eigenwillig P, Chhatwani S, Jungbauer R. Virtuelle Planung und Herstellung von Inhouse-Alignern mit ArchForm. Kieferorthopädie 2019; 33: 55-63
• 50 Hennessy J, Al-Awadhi EA. Clear aligners generations and orthodontic tooth movement. J Orthod 2016; 43: 68-76.
• 51 Weckmann J, Scharf S, Graf I. et al. Einfluss des Attachment-Klebeprotokolls auf die Genauigkeit des Attachments bei Aligner-Behandlungen. J Orofac Orthop 2020; 81: 30-40.
• 52 Sofan E, Sofan A, Palaia G. et al. Classification review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2017; 8: 1-17.
• 53 Al-Omari WM, Mitchell CA, Cunningham JL. Surface roughness and wettability of enamel and dentine surfaces prepared with different dental burs. J Oral Rehabil 2001; 28: 645-650.
• 54 Sarac D, Sarac YS, Kulunk S. et al. Effect of the dentin cleansing techniques on dentin wetting and on the bond strength of a resin luting agent. J Prosthet Dent 2005; 94: 363-369.
• 55 Bortolotto T, Ferrari M, Krejci I. Wetting ability of single-component self-etching adhesives on enamel and dentin. Am J Dent 2008; 21: 59-63
• 56 Attin R, Stawarczyk B, Keçik D. et al. Shear bond strength of brackets to demineralize enamel after different pretreatment methods. Angle Orthod 2012; 82: 56-61.
• 57 Jia L, Stawarczyk B, Schmidlin PR. et al. Effect of caries infiltrant application on shear bond strength of different adhesive systems to sound and demineralized enamel. J Adhes Dent 2012; 14: 569-574
• 58 Naidu E, Stawarczyk B, Tawakoli PN. et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic resins after caries infiltrant preconditioning. Angle Orthod 2013; 83: 306-312.
• 59 Wiegand A, Stawarczyk B, Kolakovic M. et al. Adhesive performance of a caries infiltrant on sound and demineralised enamel. J Dent 2011; 39: 117-121.