Evaluation of Scotchbond multipurpose and maleic acid as alternative methods of bonding orthodontic brackets

Damage to the enamel surface during bonding and debonding of orthodontic brackets is a clinical concern. Alternative bonding methods that minimize enamel surface damage while maintaining a clinically useful bond strength is an aim of current research. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects on bond strength and bracket failure location of two adhesives (System 1+ and Scotchbond Multipurpose, 3M Dental Products Division) and two enamel conditioners (37% phosphoric acid and 10% maleic acid). Forty-eight freshly extracted human premolars were pumiced and divided into four groups of 12 teeth, and metal orthodontic brackets were attached to the enamel surface by one of four protocols: (1) System 1+ and phosphoric acid, (2) Scotchbond and phosphoric acid, (3) System 1+ and maleic acid, and (4) Scotchbond and maleic acid. After bracket attachment, the teeth were mounted in phenolic rings and stored in deionized water at 37° C for 72 hours. A Zwick universal testing machine (Zwick GmbH & Co.) was used to determine shear bond strengths. The residual adhesive on the enamel surface was evaluated with the Adhesive Remnant Index. The analysis of variance was used to compare the four groups. Significance was predetermined at p ≤ 0.05. The results indicated that there were no significant differences in bond strength among the four groups ( p = 0.386). The results of the Chi square test, evaluating the residual adhesives on the enamel surfaces, revealed significant differences among the four groups (χ 2 = 0.005). A Duncan multiple range test revealed the difference occurred between the phosphoric acid and maleic acid groups, with maleic acid having bond failures at the enamel-adhesive interface. In conclusion, the use of Scotchbond Multipurpose and/or maleic acid does not significantly effect bond strength, however, the use of maleic acid resulted in an unfavorable bond failure location. (Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997;111:498-501.)