Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study

Adhesives are essential for attaching orthodontic brackets to the tooth surface and ensuring safe removal during debonding. ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) is a bioactive composite with potential advantages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) with conventional adhesives, including Transbond XT™ (TXT) and Orthocem™ (OC). A total of 51 human maxillary premolars were distributed randomly into three groups (n = 17). Each group was bonded with one adhesive following the manufacturer's protocols. Then were subjected to 5000 thermocycles to simulate oral conditions. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and ARI scores were visually analysed under magnification. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and chi-squared tests, with a 0.05 level of significance. Mean SBS values were 11.26 MPa, 12.52 MPa, and 12.96 MPa for ABR, TXT, and OC, respectively, with no significant differences (p = 0.513). ARI analysis revealed significant differences (p = 0.009) as ABR predominantly exhibited ARI 3 scores, indicating no adhesive remnants on enamel. In contrast, TXT and OC groups showed higher adhesive retention. ABR demonstrated shear bond strength comparable to conventional adhesives, meeting the clinical thresholds for orthodontic use. But demonstrated more complete adhesive failure in the enamel-adhesive interface rather than cohesive failure within the adhesive material like in TXT and OC.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
The Saudi Dental Journal
Published
2025-04-15
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s44445-025-00002-5
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Dental materials and restorations
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
3.35
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study

Asim Almarhoumi, Muhammad Sohail Zafar, Omar Alahmadi, Abdulaziz A. Alharbi et al.
2 citations
The Saudi Dental Journal
Dental materials and restorations
3.35
article

Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study

Asim Almarhoumi, Muhammad Sohail Zafar, Omar Alahmadi, Abdulaziz A. Alharbi, Rawan Mohammed Alaydaa, Kawthar Bukhari, Rana Alhazmi
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Adhesives are essential for attaching orthodontic brackets to the tooth surface and ensuring safe removal during debonding. ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) is a bioactive composite with potential advantages. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE-Restorative (ABR) with conventional adhesives, including Transbond XT™ (TXT) and Orthocem™ (OC). A total of 51 human maxillary premolars were distributed randomly into three groups (n = 17). Each group was bonded with one adhesive following the manufacturer's protocols. Then were subjected to 5000 thermocycles to simulate oral conditions. SBS was measured using a universal testing machine, and ARI scores were visually analysed under magnification. Statistical analysis was conducted using one-way ANOVA and chi-squared tests, with a 0.05 level of significance. Mean SBS values were 11.26 MPa, 12.52 MPa, and 12.96 MPa for ABR, TXT, and OC, respectively, with no significant differences (p = 0.513). ARI analysis revealed significant differences (p = 0.009) as ABR predominantly exhibited ARI 3 scores, indicating no adhesive remnants on enamel. In contrast, TXT and OC groups showed higher adhesive retention. ABR demonstrated shear bond strength comparable to conventional adhesives, meeting the clinical thresholds for orthodontic use. But demonstrated more complete adhesive failure in the enamel-adhesive interface rather than cohesive failure within the adhesive material like in TXT and OC.

The Saudi Dental JournalVol. 37(1-3)
University of Jordan (JO), Ajman University (AE), Taibah University (SA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Dental materials and restorations
3.35
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.