JIOS
Comparison in Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets between Biofix and Conventional Bonding Systems
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Comparison in Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic
Brackets between Biofix and Conventional Bonding
Systems: An in vitro Study
1
Ajith Rajasekharan Pillai, 2Anil Gangadharan, 3Satheesh Kumar, 4Jithin Gangadharan
ABSTRACT
Background and objectives: The aim of the study was to
evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets bonded with three
bonding systems under laboratory conditions and to compare
resin tag penetration after debonding.
Materials and methods: The study was done on 60 extracted
human premolar teeth, divided into three groups of 20 teeth each.
Each group was bonded with three different types of bonding
systems namely, the single component bonding systemBiofix,
conventional light cured bonding systemTransbond XT and
conventional chemical cured bonding systemUnite. The shear
bond strength of the bonding system in each group was tested
using Instron testing machine. After debonding, the samples
were sectioned and viewed under scanning electron microscope
to evaluate the resin tag penetration. The depth of penetration
was measured with the measuring tool in the scanning electron
microscope and marked.
Results: The study revealed that the group bonded with Biofix
has got the enough bond strength as the conventional chemical
cured bonding system, Unite. The resin tag penetration into
enamel was seen to be highest for Transbond XT, and for Biofix
and Unite it was comparable and less.
Conclusion: The shear bond strength values for Biofix is above
the needed value to sustain normal oral and orthodontic forces
and the residual resin tag remained after debonding are also
less. Hence, the single component bonding system Biofix can
be considered as a good material of choice for normal clinical
bonding procedures.
Keywords: Orthodontic brackets, Bonding, Composite resins,
Biofix, Shear bond strength, Resin tags.
How to cite this article: Pillai AR, Gangadharan A, Kumar
S, Gangadharan J. Comparison in Shear Bond Strength of
Orthodontic Brackets between Biofix and Conventional Bon-
ding Systems: An in vitro Study. J Ind Orthod Soc 2014;48(4):
461-465.
Source of support: Nil
Conflict of interest: None
1
Reader, 2Head, 3Professor, 4Postgraduate Student
1-4
Department of Orthodontics, Azeezia College of Dental
Science, Kollam, Kerala, India
Corresponding Author: Ajith Rajasekharan Pillai, Reader
Department of Orthodontics, Azeezia College of Dental
Science, Kollan, Kerala, India, Phone: 04743069350, e-mail:
ajith_rpillai7@yahoo.co.in
The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, October-December 2014;48(4):461-465
10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1297
Received on: 26/5/14
Accepted after revision: 30/5/14
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontics typically involves the use of braces for aligning
teeth. Bonding of orthodontic brackets to the tooth has been
an important issue, since the introduction of bonding in
orthodontics.1 Since then, many new bonding agents have
been developed with its own merits and demerits.
Among the factors which determine the success of fixed
appliance therapy, the capability of adhesive system to
resist failure to forces directed to bracket-adhesive-enamel
junction is very important. Orthodontic adhesives should be
capable of enabling the bracket to stay bonded to the enamel
for the whole duration of treatment and to permitting easy
removal of brackets, when needed without damage to enamel
surface. It should provide a simple way of application,
convenient way of curing, and should have the potential for
fluoride-release potential.2,3
Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments was probably
the most significant development in clinical orthodontics in
the second half of the 20th century.4 In 1955, Buonocore,5
borrowing the techniques of industrial bonding, enhanced the
adhesion with phosphoric acid. Although, it is a controversy,
Newman1 independently claimed first direct bonding in the
early 1950s.
In 1962, bisphenol A glycidyl methacrylate (BIS-GMA)
resins were introduced by Rafael Brown as dental adhesives
and later applied in orthodontic practice.6
It was not until 1993 that the first commercial light cured
product came to the market (Transbond XT Light Cure, 3M
UNITEK). The same year, Watanabe and Nakabayashi7
developed a self-etching primeran aqueous solution of 2%
phenyl-P in 30% HEMA (hydroxymethyl methacrylate)for
bonding to enamel and dentin simultaneously. This again
helped in reducing the chair side time but the bond strength
was questionable. It has taken half a century for orthodontic
bonding procedures to evolve from acrylic to chemically
cured (2-phase, then 1) to light-cured to dual-cured (chemical
light) to moisture-active to apcs.8
461
Ajith Rajasekharan Pillai et al

All these bonding systems use a primer for improving Group 1

the bond strength. In this study, the composite used is
In Group 1, biofix (biodinamica) adhesive composite was
Biofix for which the manufacturers claim that there is
placed under brackets and fixed to the labial surface of teeth
no need for applying the primer separately. Biofix light
as per manufacturers instructions.
cured is a single component bonding system for plastic,
metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to be fixed on Group 2
dental enamel. Composition of the material is biphenyl a
In Group 2, Transbond XT light cure orthodontic primer
glicidilmethecrylate (34,78%), dimethacrylate urethane
was applied to the tooth surface. Transbond XT light cure
ethylene, inorganic filler (41, 52%), titanium dioxide, sodium
orthodontic adhesive.
fluoride and catalyst.
Both Groups 1 and 2 were light cured with a visible
The bonding procedure and mechanism of action is
light-curing unit Ortholux Luminous Curing Light for
similar like other light cure adhesives.
40 seconds, 10 seconds per side of bracket. All the 20 samples
The manufacturer suggests 10 seconds curing for
were prepared in the same method.
ceramic brackets and 20 seconds for metal brackets which
again helps in reducing chairside time. The composite and Group 3
primer are combined together reducing a step in chair side
and thereby reducing the time and cost needed for bonding. In Group 3, conventional self-cure Unite composite
adhesive (3M) material was bonded as per manufacturers
Coupling the two in one step may affect the bond strength
instructions.
either advantageously or adversely. This study proposes to
After bonding, all samples were stored in distilled water
evaluate the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets
at room temperature for 24 hours.
bonded with three different adhesive systems and to evaluate
A universal testing machine (Instron 3365) was used
the resin penetration during bonding, thereby evaluating the
for the shear bond test at a cross head speed of 5 mm per
efficiency of the new bonding system.
minute. In the upper jig of the instron machine, a metal string
was attached, which hang down and transferred the force
MATERIALS AND METHODS to the bracket. The load at bracket failure was recorded by
a personal computer connected to the testing machine. The
Sixty non-carious human maxillary and mandibular
shear bond strength values were calculated in megapascals
premolars, extracted for orthodontic purposes, were used
(MPa) by dividing the debonding force by the area of the
for this study.
bracket base.
Teeth were divided into three groups and assigned at
After debonding, the teeth were sectioned and examined
random into three sets of 20 teeth corresponding to the
under scanning electron microscope) to evaluate the resin
number of adhesives tested. The groups were as follows:
penetration into enamel.
Group 1: Biofix (Biodinamica)
The specimens were sputter coated with gold palladium
Group 2: Transbond XT (3M)
and observed in a scanning electron microscope (XL30,
Group 3: Unite (3M)
Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands) operated at 10 kV at
Each tooth was mounted vertically in a selfcure acrylic
magnifications of 500 times. The enamel-composite resin
block. Teeth were positioned with their long axis of the
interface was examined for resin penetration into the enamel
crown being parallel to the direction of the shear force to
surface. The depth of penetration was measured with the
be applied in testing machine.
measuring tool in the SEM and marked.
All samples were stored in deionized water at 37C for
The average depth of resin penetration was noted and
48 hours. Before bonding, all the required prophylaxis was done.
compared with the other groups.
Bondable stainless steel 0.022 slot PEA (Roth prescription)
premolar brackets (American Orthodontics, USA) were STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
used. The average bracket base area was determined to be
Statistical analysis was done using SPSS IBM version 20
8.686 mm2 (as prescribed by the manufacturer).
(Chicago, USA) systems. All statistical tests were performed
at a p < 0.05 level of significance.
Etching
All samples are etched with 37% orthophosphoric acid gel RESULTS
(IvoclarVivadent) for 30 seconds,9-11 followed by thorough The shear bond strength of bonded brackets with conventional
washing with abundant water spray. light cured bonding systemTransbond XT is more than

462

Comparison in Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets between Biofix and Conventional Bonding Systems
single component bonding systemBiofix, and conventional
chemical cured bonding systemUnite. But comparison
between groups Biofix and Unite shows no significant
difference in shear bond strength.
The resin penetration was found to be highest for
Transbond XT, and when comparing between Biofix and
Unite, the depth of penetration was found to be almost equal.
DISCUSSION
Achieving effective and lasting shear bonding between
enamel, adhesive and orthodontic brackets is essential
in day to day orthodontic practice. The efficacy of direct
bonding in achieving a mechanical bond requires a dry
environment. Any contamination during bonding procedure
compromises the bond strength completely and is considered
the most common reason for bond failure.12-14 One way to
overcome this problem is by reducing the chair side time
and do the bonding faster. This reduces the probability of
contamination.
Conventional adhesive system uses three different agents
(enamel conditioner, primer solution and adhesive system).
The reduction in the number of steps for bonding procedures
reduces the probability of contamination during bonding and
reduces the chair side time for orthodontic treatment. To
simplify orthodontic bonding and to save chair time, newer
materials have been manufactured.
The introduction of self etching primers reduced the
clinical bonding steps and chair time, because they combine
the etching and priming steps. According to studies, the
shear bond strength value of self-etch primers was found
to be significantly lower but acceptable. The conventional
multi-step adhesives showed the highest bond strength.
The self-etching primers simplified bonding procedures but
caused an undesirable decrease in bond strength.15,16
Much confusion and uncertainty surrounds the use of
sealants and primers in orthodontic bonding. Research
has been devoted to determining the exact function of the
intermediate resin in acid etch procedure. The findings
are divergent. Some investigators conclude that an inter
mediate resin is necessary to achieve proper bond strength:
some indicate that intermediate resin is necessary to improve
resistance to microleakage: others feel intermediate resin
is necessary for both reasons, still others do not think that
intermediate resin is necessary at all.17,18
Acid etching causes demineralisation of the surface
enamel. It removes approximately 10 m of enamel surface
and creates a morphologically porous layer (5 to 50 m
deep).19-22 The surface free energy is increased, and as a
result, the low-viscosity fluid resin contacts the surface and
is attracted to the interior of these microporosities created
by conditioning through capillarity (capillary attraction).
The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, October-December 2014;48(4):461-465
JIOS
Therefore, resin tags are formed into microporosities of
conditioned enamel that after adequate polymerization,
provide a resistant, long-lasting bond by micromechanical
interlocking with this tissue.23
The bonded brackets should be able to withstand forces
generated by treatment mechanics and occlusion, and it
should allow easy debonding without damage to the enamel.
It was also reported that a maximum tensile bond strength of
5.9 to 7.9 MPa would be adequate to resist treatment forces
but in vitro tensile strength level of 4.9 MPa have proved
clinically acceptable.24
In 1975, Reynolds24 reported that shear bond strengths in
the range of 5.9 to 7.8 MPa were needed to sustain normal
oral and orthodontic forces. The mean bond strengths in
this study were in an acceptable range, between 9 and
12 MPa (Table 1).
In this study, an in vitro bond strength characterization
was chosen due to the relative simplicity, increased reliability
of simulating debonding techniques and mode of load
application by shear force. Shear bond strength was tested,
because most masticatory forces are of a shearing nature.
The test result shows that the shear bond strength values
of Biofix and Unite are comparable. The mean SBS value
obtained for Transbond XT and Unite were in accordance
with the previous studies.25-30
Although, the shear bond strength values of different
adhesive systems were varying in the current study, they are
still in the clinically acceptable range. The single component
bonding system Biofix, and the conventional chemical cure
adhesive Unite are comparable in the study. Even though
Biofix is a light cure bonding system and Unite is a self
cure one, the shear bond strength values were in comparable
range. In some previous studies,31,32 the shear bond strength
values of self cure and light cure adhesives were also found
to be in same range. But visible light-cured composites
may have some clinical advantages over the chemically
cured composites. They allow more working time which is
useful in precise bracket placement, which is having much
importance in the PEA system, including their relative ease
of use, improved bracket placement possibilities, and faster
setting of the composite.
In orthodontics, brackets and attachments are bonded for
a limited time. The requirements of sufficient bond strength,
ease of debonding, and limited risk of permanent damage to
the enamel surface are thus critical in orthodontics.
Table 1: Shear bond strength values
Biofix 9.3050 MPa (SD0.94798)
Transbond XT 11.2135 MPa (SD1.42512)
Unite 9.8985 MPa (SD1.59862)
463
Ajith Rajasekharan Pillai et al
The scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the
deboned enamel-adhesive interface after sectioning showed
the results as in the Table 2.
Resin tag penetration was comparable between Biofix
and Unite (Fig. 1), but in Transbond XT (Fig. 2) group, it
was found to be greater. The depth of resin tags formed
is determined by pattern of acid etching, viscosity of the
composite material, particle size, etc.33-35
Several authors noted that there is apparently no
correlation between resin tag length and bond strength of the
Table 2: Resin tag penetration during bonding
Sample Resin penetration (m)
Biofix 3-9 m
Transbond XT 10-20 m
Unite 3-8 m
Fig. 1: Resin tag penetration comparison
between Biofix and Unite
Fig. 2: Resin presentation in Transbond XT
464
material.35,36 In the current study, the resin tag penetration
is more with Transbond XT (10-20 m). Regular debonding
with clean up rarely removes more than about 5 m and
there is a risk that resin tags will persist in the enamel after
debonding.37 Although, the shear bond strength is high, the
amount of residual resin tag remaining after debonding is
also more for Transbond XT. Since, there is no correlation
between resin tag and the shear bond strength, the residual
resin entrapped after debonding and clean up can cause
problems in future. These resin tags might discolor with
time,38 and can lead to an esthetic problem to the patient later.
The adhesives with enough bond strength and lower
resin penetration are thus good for both the clinician and
the patient. The single component bonding system Biofix
has only a resin penetration of 3 to 9 m compared to the
conventional light cured composites. Hence, the material
can be removed by the normal debonding with clean up to
a better extent.
By avoiding the contamination and performing the
bonding fast and accurately could be a good solution for
the current scenario. By using the new composite system
Biofix, the chairside time can be reduced and will also be
cost effective. The current study is in accordance with the
manufacturers claim, that by using Biofix we can have
sufficient bond strength, reduce the chair side time and cost
by avoiding the primer application step.
CONCLUSION
The shear bond strength of the single component bonding
systemBiofix was comparable to the conventional
chemical cured bonding systemUnite.
The resin tag penetration into enamel for Biofix was
found to be less than the conventional light cured
composite. Hence, the residual resin after debonding on
the enamel surface will be less.
REFERENCES
1. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments:
progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51(12):901-912.
2. S Suna WPR. An ex vivo investigation into the bond strength
of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems. Br J Orthod
1999;26(1):47.
3. Millett D, Mandall N, Hickman J, Mattick R, Glenny AM.
Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Angle Orthod 2009;
79(1):193-199.
4. Miura F, Nakagawa K, Masuhara E. New direct bonding system
for plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1971;59(4):350-361.
5. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion
of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res
1955;34:849.
6. Silverman E, Cohen M, Gianelly AA, Dietz VS. A universal
direct bonding system for both metal and plastic brackets. Am
J Orthod 1972;62(3):236-244.

Comparison in Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets between Biofix and Conventional Bonding Systems
7. Watanabe INN. Bonding durability of photocured phenyl-P in
TEGDMA to smear layer-retained bovine dentin. Quintessence
Int 1993May;24(5):335-342.
8. Ajlouni R, Bishara SE, Soliman MM, Oonsombat C, Laffoon JF,
Warren J. The use of ormocer as an alternative material for bon-
ding orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2005;75(1):106-108.
9. Wang WN, Yeh CL, Fang BD, Sun KT, Arvystas MG. Effect
of H3PO4 concentration on bond strength. Angle Orthod 1994;
64(5):377-382.
10. Nordenvall KJ, Brnnstrm M, Malmgren O. Etching of
deciduous teeth and young and old permanent teeth: a
comparison between 15 and 60 seconds of etching. Am J Orthod
1980;78(1):99-108.
11. Brnnstrm M, Malmgren O, Nordenvall KJ. Etching of young
permanent teeth with an acid gel. Am J Orthod 1982;82(5):
379-383.
12. ztoprak MO, Isik F, Saynsu K, Arun T, Aydemir B. Effect
of blood and saliva contamination on shear bond strength of
brackets bonded with 4 adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
2007;131(2):238-242.
13. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, De Angelis M, Klersy C.
Effects of blood contamination on the shear bond strengths of
conventional and hydrophilic primers. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop 2004;126(2):207-212.
14. Hobson RS, Ledvinka J, Meechan JG. The effect of moisture and
blood contamination on bond strength of a new orthodontic
bonding material. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001;120(1):
54-57.
15. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a self-
etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodontic
brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2001;119(6):621-624.
16. Chu CH, Ou KL, Dong DR, Huang HM, Tsai HH, Wang WN.
Orthodontic bonding with self-etching primer and self-adhesive
systems. Int J Orthod 2011;33(3):276-281.
17. Wang WN, Tarng TH. Evaluation of the sealant in orthodontic
bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991;100(3):209-211.
18. Joseph VPB. Do sealants seal? An SEM Investigation J Clin
Orthod 1992 Mar;26:141.
19. AJ G. Histologic changes in human enamel following treatment
with acidic adhesive conditioning agents. Arch Oral Biol
1971;16:731-738.
20. Burapavong V, Marshall GW, Apfel DA, Perry HT. Enamel
surface characteristics on removal of bonded orthodontic
brackets. Am J Orthod 1978;74(2):176-187.
21. Pus MD, Way DC. Enamel loss due to orthodontic bonding with
filled and unfilled resins using various clean up techniques. Am
J Orthod 1980;77(3):269-283.
22. Thompson RE, Way DC. Enamel loss due to prophylaxis and
multiple bonding/debonding of orthodontic attachments. Am J
Orthod 1981;79(3):282-295.
23. Diedrich P. Enamel alterations from bracket bonding and
debonding: a study with the scanning electron microscope. Am
J Orthod 1981;79(5):500-522.
The Journal of Indian Orthodontic Society, October-December 2014;48(4):461-465
JIOS
24. IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod
1975;2:71-78.
25. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortz AJ, Canteras M. Effects
of three adhesion promoters on the shear bond strength of
orthodontic brackets: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop 2006;129(3):390-395.
26. Minick GT, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, Shellhart WC. Bracket
bond strengths of new adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop 2009;135(6):771-776.
27. Grubisa HSI, Heo G, Raboud D, Glover KE, Major PW. An
evaluation and comparison of orthodontic bracket bond strengths
achieved with self-etching primer. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
2004;126(2):213-219.
28. Bulut H, Trkn M, Trkn L, Iksal E. Evaluation of the
shear bond strength of three curing bracket bonding systems
combined with an antibacterial adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac
Orthop 2007;132(1):77-83.
29. Xiaojun D, Jing L, Xuehua G, Hong R, Youcheng Y, Zhangyu G,
et al. Effects of CPP-ACP paste on the shear bond strength
of orthodontic brackets. The Angle Orthodontist 2009;79(5):
945-950.
30. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Shear bond
strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive
systems. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1999;115(1):24-28.
31. Galindo HRA, Sadowsky PL, Vlachos C, Jacobson A, Wallace
D. An in vivo comparison between a visible light-cured bonding
system and a chemically cured bonding system. Am J Orthod
Dentofac Orthop 1998;113(3):271-275.
32. Smith RT, Shivapuja PK. The evaluation of dual cement
resins in orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop
1993;103(5):448-451.
33. Naidu E, Stawarczyk B, Tawakoli PN, Attin R, Attin T, Wiegand
A. Shear bond strength of orthodontic resins after caries infiltrant
preconditioning. The Angle Orthodontist 2012;83(2):306-312.
34. Soares de Menezes LF, Chevitarese O. Sealant and resin viscosity
and their influence on the formation of resin tags. The Angle
Orthodontist 1994;64(5):383-388.
35. Fjeld M, gaard B. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of
enamel surfaces exposed to three orthodontic bonding systems.
Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2006;130(5):575-581.
36. Legler LR, Retief DH, Bradley EL, Denys FR, Sadowsky PL.
Effects of phosphoric acid concentration and etch duration on the
shear bond strength of an orthodontic bonding resin to enamel:
An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;96(6):
485-492.
37. Fitzpatrick DA, Way DC. The effects of wear, acid etching,
and bond removal on human enamel. Am J Orthod 1977;72(6):
671-681.
38. Ogaard B. Prevalence of white spot lesions in 19-year-old: a
study on untreated and orthodontically treated persons 5 years
after treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1989;96(5):
423-427.
465