# Do the methods for cleaning the base of brackets used in indirect bonding interfere with adhesion to tooth enamel?

## TL;DR

This study compared different methods for cleaning bracket bases in indirect bonding and found no significant differences in their adhesion to tooth enamel.

## Contribution

The study provides empirical evidence on the effectiveness of various bracket surface treatments for indirect bonding adhesion.

## Key findings

- No statistically significant difference in shear bond strength was found between the tested surface treatments.
- Alcohol 70% and aluminum oxide blasting showed higher resistance values compared to the water spray group.
- All tested methods demonstrated similar performance in bonding brackets to enamel.

## Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of metal brackets bonded with indirect bonding, under different surface treatment protocols.

40 bovine teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10), according to the type of surface treatment: G1 = 70% alcohol, G2 = air/water spray, G3 = 100-µm aluminum oxide blasting, G4 = direct boning. After drying, the standard Edgewise central incisor brackets were bonded with light-cured resin. The brackets were moved from the plaster models by means of a transfer tray made with condensation silicone, and bonded to the surface of the enamel with self-curing adhesive. The samples were submitted to shear tests by a universal test machine. Data were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 by the one-way ANOVA test and the Tukey post-test.

No statistically significant difference (p=0.174) was observed between the mean forces measured between the group for shear strength values of the groups during the test: G1 (5.33 MPa), G2 (3.52 MPa) and G3 (4.58 MPa).

The bracket surface treatment protocols presented similarities in shear bond strength test. However, alcohol 70% and oxide blasting presented higher absolute values of resistance than the water group.