ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of self-etching primer and adhesive

formulations on the shear bond strength of
orthodontic brackets
Zafer C. Cehreli,a Defne Kecik,b and Ilken Kocaderelic
Ankara, Turkey

Purpose: Despite many published articles on the bond strength of self-etching primers and adhesives in the
restorative dentistry literature, there have been relatively few laboratory studies of the bond strength of new
orthodontic materials, and, in most of these published studies, investigators used various methodologic
approaches during different stages of the in vitro testing procedures. The aim of this study was to compare
the shear bond strength of 4 self-etching primer and adhesive formulations, a nonrinse conditioner and
acetone adhesive system, and a conventional system. Material: The self-etching products tested were
Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Dental, Osaka, Japan), FL Bond
(Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan), and One-Up Bond F (Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan); the nonrinse conditioner and
acetone-based adhesive system was NRC and Prime&Bond NT (Dentsply International, Konstanz, Germany);
the conventional acid-etch and bond system was Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif). Brackets were
bonded to intact bovine mandibular incisors (n ⫽ 7 per group) according to each manufacturer’s
recommendations. The specimens were first stored in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours and then
subjected to thermal cycling in deionized water at 5°C ⫾ 2°C to 55°C ⫾ 2°C for 1000 cycles. To facilitate
degradation of bonds, the specimens were further stored in distilled water for 6 weeks before debonding
procedures. Results: The shear bond strengths of the 5 experimental groups were all significantly lower (P
⬍ .05) than that of the control group (Prompt L-Pop, 1.72 ⫾ 0.13 MPa; Clearfil SE Bond, 1.75 ⫾ 0.19 MPa;
FL Bond, 1.71 ⫾ 0.22 MPa; One-Up Bond F, 1.77 ⫾ 0.14 MPa; control, 10.5 ⫾ 0.86 MPa) but not different
from one another (P ⬎ .05). Conclusions: The tested self-etching primer and adhesive systems produced
bond strength values much lower than that of the control product. Clinically, these products might not be
suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding in terms of the shear bond strength achieved after thermal cycling
and water storage. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:573-9)

M
any types of resin bonding systems have
been developed in the last decade. Current
resin bonding systems can be divided into 2
categories, in terms of simplified clinical applications.
Systems in the first category include a phosphoric acid
etchant for enamel and a bottle of adhesive resin; those
in the second include a self-etching primer, which
combines the etching and priming in 1 procedure, and
an adhesive resin.1-3 Although phosphoric acid etching
still seems to be the most frequently used method for
enamel preparation,4,5 enamel damage from debonding
still is a major clinical problem.6,7 In contrast, self-
etching primers show much less etching ability because
a
From the Faculty of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Ankara, Turkey.
Associate professor, Department of Pediatric Dentistry.
b
of their relatively higher pH as compared with phos-
phoric acid etchants,8 thus minimizing the potential for
iatrogenic damage to enamel.
Generally, self-etching primers contain an aqueous
alcohol mixture of acidic functional monomers and
other constituents, which enable the diffusion of mono-
mers and partial dissolving of hydroxyapatite simulta-
neously, resulting in a resin-infiltrated zone entrapped
with minerals.9,10 This attempt at creating adhesion to
enamel without a separate and distinct etching step,
with its necessary rinsing and drying of the bonding
surfaces, has gained increasing attention as a notewor-
thy alternative to the conventional phosphoric acid
etch– bond technique.
In the restorative dentistry literature, there is still

c
Research assistant, Department of Orthodontics.
Professor, Department of Orthodontics.
Reprint requests to: Dr Zafer C. Cehreli, Gazi M. Kemal Bulvari, Maltepe,
Ankara 61/11 06570, Turkey; e-mail, zcehreli@hacettepe.edu.tr
Submitted, August 2003; revised and accepted, December 2003.
0889-5406/$30.00
Copyright © 2005 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.12.027
some concern that manufacturers are sacrificing enamel
bond strength in their effort to simplify clinical appli-
cation.2,11 However, the inability of self-etching adhe-
sives to produce conventional bond strengths to intact
enamel is quite advantageous in terms of orthodontic
bracket bonding. Successful clinical bonding is re-
573
574 Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli
Table I. Composition of self-etching adhesive systems used in present study
Test material Type Batch no.
NRC and Prime&Bond NT A 0109001069
Prompt L-Pop B 106952
Clearfil SE Bond C 41153
FL Bond D 0501
One Up Bond F C 480700E
A, fifth-generation, single-bottle adhesive; B, no-bottle, self-etching system; C, 2-bottle, self-etching system; D, Multi-bottle, self-etching system.
PENTA, dipentaerythritol pental acrylate monophosphate; UDMA, urethane dimethacrylate; CQ, camphoroquinone; 10-MDP, methacryloyloxy
methacrylate; HEMA, 2-hydroxyethyl methacrylate; Bis-GMA, bisphenol-glycidil methacrylate; 4-AET, 4-acryloxyethyltrimellitie acid; 4-AETA,
4-acryloxyethyltrimellitate anhydrate; TEGDMA, triethyleneglycol dimethacrylate; SiO2, silicon dioxide.
ported to be achieved by a shear bond strength as low
as 6 to 8 MPa,12 a bonding value at least 3 times lower
than the minimum essential bond strength required to
compensate for polymerization contraction of contem-
porary restorative resin composite materials.13
Because there seems to be only 1 recent self-etching
adhesive product (Transbond Plus, 3M Unitek, Monrovia,
Calif) designed especially for orthodontic purposes,
most of the previous orthodontic bond strength studies
tested the various self-etching adhesives used in restor-
ative dentistry.14-17 Despite some encouraging findings,
variations in either results or the methodologies used
necessitate further in vitro studies before routine use of
self-etching adhesives for orthodontic bonding pur-
poses can be advocated. The aim of this study was,
therefore, to evaluate the shear bond strengths of 4
self-etching primer and adhesive formulations and a
nonrinse conditioner and acetone-based adhesive sys-
tem, compared with a conventional acid-etching and
bonding system. The null hypothesis tested was that the
bond strengths to intact enamel obtained with the
self-etching adhesive systems and the nonrinse condi-
tioner and acetone-based adhesive system are not sig-
nificantly different from that achieved with the conven-
tional acid-etching and bonding system.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Table I shows the primer and adhesive systems
used. NRC (Dentsply International, Konstanz, Ger-
many) is a nonrinse enamel and dentin conditioner
containing organic acids (itaconic acid and maleic acid)
and monomers in an aqueous base. Itaconic acid, which
functions as the primer, copolymerizes with the subse-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2005
Composition
PENTA, UDMA, T-Resin (cross-linking agent), D-Resin, butylated hydroxytoluene,
4-ethyl dimethyl amonibenzoate, cetylamine hydrofluoride, acetone, silica
nanofiller
Methacrylated phosphoric acid esters, CQ, aminobenzoate, butylated
hydroxytoluene, water, fluoride complex, parabenes
Primer: MDP, HEMA, hydrophilic dimethacrylate, di-camphoroquinoneN,
N-diethanol-p-toluidine, water; Adhesive: 10-MDP, Bis-GMA, HEMA, silanated
colloidal silica, hydrophilic dimethacrylate, di-camphoroquinoneN, N-diethanol-p-
toluidine
Primer A: water, acetone photoinitiator; Primer B: 4-AET, HEMA, 4-AETA,
initiator; Adhesive: 4-AET, HEMA, UDMA, TEGDMA, SiO2 microfillers
Bonding agent A: MAC-10, photoinitiator, methacryloyloxyalkyl acid phosphate,
Bis-GMA, TEGDMA; Bonding agent B: Methyl methacrylate, HEMA, Water,
F-deliverable micro filler, photo initiator
quently applied bonding agent, Prime&Bond NT
(Dentsply), a fifth-generation single-bottle adhesive
with nanofiller technology. Maleic acid conditions and
cleanses the tooth surface. Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE,
Seefeld, Germany) is a 1-component, “no bottle” self-
etching adhesive system of methacrylated phosphoric
acid esters in a water base. Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray
Dental, Osaka, Japan) is a 2-bottle self-etching adhe-
sive system that requires application of the primer
followed by the bonding agent to provide adhesion. FL
Bond (Shofu Dental, Kyoto, Japan) is a multi-bottle
adhesive system that includes 2 bottles for the primer
and a separate adhesive solution. One-Up Bond F
(Tokuyama, Tokyo, Japan) is also a 2-bottle self-
etching adhesive system, containing fluoride; however,
the primer and adhesive are mixed into a single solution
before application on the tooth surface.
Forty-two mandibular bovine incisors were used.
Selection criteria included absence of any visible irreg-
ularity or crack of the enamel surface under 4⫻
magnification and the availability of a macroscopically
smooth, flat labial surface suitable for bonding. Imme-
diately after harvesting, the teeth were cleaned of debris
and soft tissue remnants and then polished with non-
fluoridated pumice and rubber prophylactic cups at low
speed for 10 seconds. After microscopic evaluation for
suitability, the teeth were stored frozen for up to 3
weeks. Orthodontic metal brackets (Microarch Stan-
dard, GAC International, Bohemia, NY) with a base
area of approximately 11.26 mm2 were used to bond all
teeth.
The teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups, and
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 5
Fig 1. Specimen ready for testing.
brackets were bonded to the teeth by using 1 of 5
protocols, according to the manufacturers’ instructions.
In group 1 (control), enamel surfaces were etched
with 37% phosphoric acid (Scotchbond acid gel, 3M,
Saint Paul, Minn) for 30 seconds, rinsed with oil-free
air-water spray for 15 seconds, and thoroughly dried
with a jet of oil-free compressed air. The liquid primer
of Transbond XT was applied on acid-etched surfaces
with a brush tip before bracket bonding.
In group 2, NRC was applied on enamel surfaces
with a microbrush, left undisturbed for 20 seconds, and
air-dried for 5 seconds. Prime&Bond NT was then
applied on the conditioned surface for 20 seconds and
light cured with a halogen light-curing unit (Ortholux
XT, 3M) for 10 seconds. A second layer of bonding
agent was then applied and cured in the same manner.
In group 3, Prompt L-Pop, the all-in-one, “no-
bottle” predosed adhesive containing both the acid and
the primer, was activated by squeezing the 2 compo-
nents, and the resulting mix was applied directly to the
tooth surface with a gentle rubbing action. After 15
seconds, the solvent was evaporated with a mild air
flow and light cured for 10 seconds.
Group 4 received Clearfil SE Bond, a 2-bottle
self-etching and bonding system. The primer was ap-
plied on enamel for 20 seconds and gently air dried.
The bonding agent was then applied, followed by a
mild air flow and 10 seconds of light curing.
Group 5 received FL Bond, a multi-bottle self-
etching and bonding system. Unlike Clearfil SE Bond,
the system consists of a 2-component primer, which is
mixed into 1 solution at a 1:1 ratio and applied to the
enamel surface for 10 seconds. The solvent is then air
dried. Then the bonding agent is applied and light cured
for 10 seconds.
Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli 575
Fig 2. Specimen-holding jig.
Group 6 received One-Up Bond F, a fluoride-
containing 2-bottle system that incorporates 2 bonding
agents. The manufacturer claims that the mixture of
these solutions conditions and bonds in 1 step. Both
solutions were mixed at a ratio of 1:1 and applied on the
enamel surface for 20 seconds, followed by light curing
for 10 seconds.
During and after specimen preparation, the teeth
were stored in distilled water at room temperature. To
exclude possible differences in bond strength caused by
the orthodontic adhesive used, all brackets were bonded
with the same material (Transbond XT). Before bond-
ing, each bracket was subjected to a 300-g compressive
force for 10 seconds, as described previously by
Bishara et al.14,19 The excess resin was removed with a
small scaler before photopolymerization. A halogen
light-curing unit (Ortholux XT) was used for curing the
resin, 20 seconds from both the mesial and distal sides.
The adequacy of the unit’s irradiance was confirmed
with a meter before photopolymerization. Specimens
were stored in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours,
and then thermal cycling in deionized water was
performed at 5°C ⫾ 2°C to 55°C ⫾ 2°C for 1000
cycles. The total period of exposure to both 5°C ⫾ 2°C
and 55°C ⫾ 2°C was 10 seconds, with a dwell time of
5 seconds in each bath. The teeth were then kept in
distilled water at 37°C for 6 weeks before testing
procedures. The water was changed every week.
After thermal agitation and water storage, the roots
were removed with a low-speed diamond saw under
coolant water, and the crowns were embedded in
acrylic placed in phenolic rings, with a mounting jig
used to align the labial surface of each tooth so that it
was perpendicular to the bottom of the mold. Samples
(Fig 1) were then mounted in the jig (Fig 2) attached to
the universal testing device (model 4204, Instron,
Canton, Mass) with their labial surfaces parallel to the
576 Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli
Table II.Descriptive statistics in megapascals and re-
sults of Mann-Whitney U test comparing shear bond
strength of 6 groups tested
Group n Mean ⫾ SD P*
Control 7 10.5 ⫾ 0.86 A
NRC/PB 7 1.74 ⫾ 0.12 B
L-Pop 7 1.72 ⫾ 0.13 B
CSEB 7 1.75 ⫾ 0.19 B
FLB 7 1.71 ⫾ 0.22 B
OBF 7 1.77 ⫾ 0.14 B
Control, acid etch ⫹ Transbond XT Primer; NRC/PB, NRC ⫹
Prime&Bond NT; L-Pop, Prompt L-Pop; CSEB, Clearfil SE Bond;
FLB, FL Bond; OBF, One Up Bond F.
*Identical lettering indicates values that are not significantly different
at P ⱕ .05.
shearing force applied. A knife-edged shearing blade
was secured on the crosshead with the direction of force
parallel to the labial surface and the bracket interface.
The shearing blade struck flush against the edge of the
base without touching the enamel. Bond strengths were
measured at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. The force
required to dislodge the bracket was recorded in new-
tons and converted to megapascals with the following
equation: shear force (MPa) ⫽ debonding force (N)/[w
⫻ l] (mm2), where w ⫽ width of the bracket base, l ⫽
height of the bracket base, and 1 MPa ⫽ 1 N/mm2.
After debonding, the teeth and the brackets were
examined under a stereomicroscope at 10⫻ magnifica-
tion for any adhesive remaining, in accordance with the
modified adhesive remnant index (ARI).18 ARI scores
range from 5 to 1: 5 ⫽ no adherence of composite on
enamel, 4 ⫽ less than 10% of composite remaining on
the tooth surface, 3 ⫽ more than 10% but less than 90%
of composite remaining on the tooth, 2 ⫽ more than
90% of composite remaining on the enamel, and 1 ⫽ all
composite remaining on the tooth, with the impression
of the bracket base.
The Kruskal-Wallis test at P ⱕ .05 was used to
determine whether significant differences existed be-
tween the test groups. If a statistically significant
difference was present, the Mann-Whitney U test at P
ⱕ .05 was used to identify which groups were different.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics for the shear bond
strengths of the 6 groups tested are presented in Table
II. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests showed
significant differences between the shear bond strength
of the control group and those of the test groups (P ⬍
.05), with the test materials showing no significant
differences among them in terms of bond strength (P ⬎
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2005
Table III.
Frequency distribution of ARI scores of 6
groups evaluated
ARI Scores
Test group 1 2 3 4 5 n
Control — — 7 — — 7
NRC/PB — — — — 7 7
L-Pop — — — — 7 7
CSEB — — — — 7 7
FLB — — — — 7 7
OBF — — — — 7 7
.05). Indeed, all test groups yielded bond strengths of
less than 2.0 MPa (average ⫽ 1.74 MPa). The mean
bond strength of 10.5 ⫾ 0.86 MPa achieved with the
conventional acid-etch group (control) despite thermal
cycling and water degradation indicates strong adhe-
sion to intact enamel.
Table III shows the frequency distribution of ARI
scores for the 6 groups. The failures were mostly
cohesive in the acid-etch (control) group (ARI score ⫽ 3).
In the test groups, however, a uniform ARI score of 5
indicated no composite residue on the enamel after
debonding. These results seem to correspond with the
low bond strength values obtained with the test mate-
rials.
DISCUSSION
The intact enamel surface is hypermineralized and
contains more fluoride than ground enamel. It has been
reported that, after tooth eruption, changes occur in the
outermost enamel layer. Saturated calcium phosphate
in the saliva might hypermineralize the enamel, and
fluorine ions can convert hydroxyapatite to fluoroapa-
tite, a far less acid-soluble enamel structure.20 Further-
more, the surface prismless enamel layer21,22 has been
reported to be less conducive to bonding by conven-
tional acid gel conditioning23and self-etching primer
application.24 Although the efficacy of self-etching
primers on sound, unground enamel has recently been
shown not to depend on their etching aggressiveness,25
studies have reported substantially lower bond
strengths of these newer-generation adhesives com-
pared with those of conventional acid-etching and
bonding systems.24,25
Bovine teeth were used because previous studies
have indicated that bovine and human enamel are
similar in their physical properties and adhesive bond
strength.26-28 Additionally, intact human enamel sur-
faces have complex 3-dimensional convex configura-
tions that make it extremely difficult to obtain flat
surfaces for bonding with conventional testing meth-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 127, Number 5
ods, which use relatively large surface areas for bond-
ing (eg, ⬎7 mm2).24 Mandibular bovine incisors, which
serve as relatively flatter bonding substrates, were
therefore chosen. Haydar et al29 used bovine teeth for
orthodontic bond strength testing, whereas others have
claimed that bond strengths to bovine enamel were
lower by 21% to 44%.30 In our study, the bond strength
values obtained with the self-etching primers and ad-
hesives were extremely low, ranging between 1.71 ⫾
0.22 MPa and 1.77 ⫾ 0.14 MPa. Because comparisons
with human teeth as a bonding substrate were beyond
the scope of this study, it is impossible to state that the
low bond strength values are associated with the use of
bovine teeth.
Comparisons with other studies in which self-
etching primer and adhesive systems were used for
orthodontic purposes can be made to some extent,
although differences between the enamel surface prep-
aration techniques and the testing methodologies used
must be considered with caution. Arnold et al17 tested
Transbond Plus Self Etching Primer (3M Unitek), the
orthodontic version of Prompt L-Pop (3M ESPE), in
comparison with a conventional acid-etching and bond-
ing system (Transbond XT light-cured adhesive primer,
3M ESPE). In both groups, brackets were bonded to
human teeth, which were ground flat to obtain a
uniform bonding surface. The shear bond strength
values obtained with the self-etch and conventional-
etch groups were 8.0 ⫾ 1.3 MPa and 9.7 ⫾ 3.1 MPa,
respectively, showing no statistically significant differ-
ence between the groups. The results of that study
correspond with those of previous investigations,24,31
which showed that there was no significant difference
in bond strength between the self-etching primer and
adhesive systems and conventional acid-etching and
bonding systems when they were applied to ground
enamel surfaces. However, grinding the outer prismless
enamel to expose the underlying prismatic enamel, to
enhance the quality of acid-etching and thus increase
micromechanical retention, has already been demon-
strated.32 It is, therefore, questionable whether this in
vitro procedure can, by itself, represent the clinical
situation, in which orthodontic bracket bonding is
performed on intact enamel. Kanemura et al24 reported
a significant decrease in bond strength when the tested
self-etch systems were bonded to unground enamel,
whereas there was no change in bond strength values
for the conventional bonding system. Thus, it is of
interest whether the shear bond strength of 8.0 ⫾ 1.3
MPa obtained with Transbond Plus on ground enamel17
indicates true in vitro and in vivo bond strengths.
Another methodologic concern with the previous
studies of self-etching primer and adhesive systems for
Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli 577
orthodontic purposes is the lack of thermal agitation.
The effect of thermal changes on the bond strength of
resin-based materials to dental hard tissues, as well as
on their internal physical properties (ie, fracture tough-
ness, elastic modulus), has been well documented.33-35
Thermal cycling stresses the bond between resin and
the tooth and might affect bond strength.36 Chris-
tensen37 commented that impressive in vitro bond
strengths are transient when subjected to temperature
changes in the mouth. Further work by Bishara et al19
clearly demonstrated a dramatic decrease in bond
strength (80%) after a cyanoacrylate adhesive was
subjected to 500 thermal cycles, in accordance with
ISO/TR 11405 recommendations.38In our study, a
2-fold increase in thermal cycles (1000) was preferred
because Hasegawa et al39 reported that subjecting
specimens to 500 cycles might not affect bond strength,
depending on the adhesive system used. The effect of
aggressiveness of thermal cycling on orthodontic bond
strength testing merits further research; nevertheless, it
is quite likely that this procedure contributed to the low
bond strength values in our study. Upon review of other
studies of self-etching primer and adhesive systems for
orthodontic bonding purposes,16,17,40 it is evident that
thermal cycling was the missing step before bond
strength testing and that these early bond strength data
might only suggest the suitability of this new genera-
tion of adhesives for further in vitro research, long
before their use in clinical trials can be advocated. In
light of the findings by Bishara et al,19 it would not be
surprising to see decreases in bond strength associated
with the same self-etching primer and adhesive systems
that once had been reported to exert acceptable to good
bond strength values on intact enamel.16,17,40
The third methodologic concern is the biodegrada-
tion of the adhesive and composite as a result of
immersion in water or exposure to oral fluids, leading
to decreased bond strength values over time.41-44 Mur-
ray and Hobson45 demonstrated significant loss of bond
strength in brackets bonded with Transbond after they
were immersed in water in vitro or exposed to the oral
environment for as long as 12 weeks. As with the in
vitro specimens, bond strength significantly decreased
between 4 and 8 weeks, followed by a stable period of
several weeks when there was minute deterioration in
bond strength (yet still lower than those obtained at 4
weeks).45In our study, immersing the test specimens in
water for 6 weeks was a similar approach to enable
degradation of resin-enamel bonds. The difference in
this study was that the storage medium (water) was
changed every week. Using this protocol, Kitasako
et al43 demonstrated dramatic loss of bond strength
compared with specimens kept in the same storage
578 Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli
environment until experimental protocols. Compari-
sons with initial shear bond strength values were
beyond the scope of this study; however, in light of the
published data, it is logical to assume that water storage
was another major factor contributing to the low bond
strengths achieved with the self-etch primer and adhe-
sive systems in our study.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this in vitro study, the
following conclusions were drawn:
1. The low bond strength values achieved with the
self-etch primer and adhesive systems and the
nonrinse conditioner and acetone-based adhesive
system lead to rejection of the null hypothesis that
the bond strengths obtained with these systems are
not significantly different from that of the conven-
tional acid-etch and bond system. More laboratory
research is indicated.
2 The impact of thermal cycling and water storage on
the reduction of the resin– enamel bond remains an
open area for orthodontic bond strength testing.
However, absence of these procedures before load
testing can provide only initial bond strength data,
lending support for further in vitro studies.
3 Despite the in vitro agitation methods used, the
acid-etch and composite system (control) yielded
bond strengths deemed acceptable to intact enamel,
confirming the reliability of conventional enamel
pretreatment and bonding technique. However, the
low bond strength values obtained with the self-etch
primer and adhesive systems are in stark contrast
with the limited available literature values.
REFERENCES
1. Watanabe I, Nakabayashi N, Pashley DH. Bonding to ground
dentin by a Phenyl-P self etching primer. J Dent Res 1994;73:
1212-20.
2. Miyazaki M, Hirohata N, Takagaki K, Onose H, Moore BK.
Influence of self-etching primer drying time on enamel bond
strength of resin composites. J Dent 1999;27:203-7.
3. Frankenberger R, Perdigao J, Rosa BT, Lopes M. ‘No bottle’ vs
‘Multi bottle’ dentin adhesives—a microtensile bond strength
and morphological study. Dent Mater 2001;17:373-80.
4. Canay S, Kocadereli I, Akça E. The effect of enamel air abrasion
on the relation of bonded metallic orthodontic brackets. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:15-9.
5. Kocadereli I, Canay S, Akça K. Tensile bond strength of ceramic
orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain surface. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:17-20.
6. Cehreli ZC, Altay N. Effects of a nonrinse conditioner and 17%
ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid on the etch pattern of intact
human permanent enamel. Angle Orthod 2000;70:22-7.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2005
7. Cehreli ZC, Altay N. Etching effect of 17% EDTA and a
non-rinse conditioner (NRC) on primary enamel and dentin.
Am J Dent 2000;13:64-8.
8. Urabe I, Inokoshi S, Suzuki T, Yamada T, Tagami J. Scanning
laser microscopy and scanning electron microscopy of etched
human enamel and dentin. Jpn Soc Adhes Dent 1997;15:48-53.
9. Van Meerbeck B, Perdigao J, Lambrechts P, Vanherle G. The
clinical performance of adhesives. J Dent 1998;26:1-20.
10. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and
SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent
1999;27:523-30.
11. Pashley DH, Tay F. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-
etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel.
Dent Mater 2001;17:430-44.
12. Carstensen W. Clinical effects of reduced acid concentration on
direct bonding of brackets. Angle Orthod 1993;63:221-4.
13. Montes MAJR, De Goes MF, Da Cunha MRB, Soares AB. A
morphological and tensile bond strength evaluation of an unfilled
adhesive with low-viscosity composites and a filled adhesive in
one and two coats. J Dent 2001;29:435-41.
14. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Olson ME. Effect of an
acidic primer on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998;114:243-7.
15. Bishara SE, Gordan VV, VonWald L, Jakobsen JR. Shear bond
strength of composite, glass ionomer, and acidic primer adhesive
systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:24-8.
16. Bishara SE, VonWald L, Laffoon JF, Warren JJ. Effect of a
self-etch primer/adhesive on the shear bond strength of orthodon-
tic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;119:621-4.
17. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH. Bonding of stainless steel
brackets to enamel with a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:274-6.
18. Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of
Scotchbond multi-purpose and maleic acid as alternative meth-
ods of bonding orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 1997;111:498-501.
19. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF. Effect of thermocycling on
the shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate orthodontic adhesive.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:21-4.
20. Sturdevant CM, Barton RE, Sockwell CL, Strickland WD. The
art and science of operative dentistry. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: W.B.
Saunders; 1985. p. 54 –5.
21. Ripa LW, Gwinnet AJ, Buonocore MG. The ‘prismless’ outer
layer of deciduous and permanent enamel. Arch Oral Biol
1966;11:41-8.
22. Whittaker DK. Structural variations in the surface zone of human
tooth enamel observed by scanning electron microscopy. Arch
Oral Biol 1982;27:383-92.
23. Nathanson D, Bodkin JL, Evans JR. SEM of etching patterns in
surface and subsurface enamel. J Pedodont 1982;7:11-7.
24. Kanemura N, Sano H, Tagami J. Tensile bond strength to and
SEM evaluation of ground and intact enamel surfaces. J Dent
1999;27:523-30.
25. Pashley DH, Tay FR. Aggressiveness of contemporary self-
etching adhesives. Part II: etching effects on unground enamel.
Dent Mater 2001;17:430-44.
26. Smith H, Casko J, Leinfelder K, Utley JD. Comparison of
orthodontic bracket bond strengths: human vs. bovine enamel. J
Dent Res 1976;55:153-67.
27. Nakamichi I, Iwaku M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible
substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res 1983;62:1076-81.
28. Fowler CS, Swartz ML, Moore BK, Rhodes BF. Influence of
selected variables on adhesion testing. Dent Mater 1992;8:265-9.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Cehreli, Kecik, and Kocadereli 579
Volume 127, Number 5

29. Haydar B, Sarikaya S, Cehreli ZC. Comparison of shear bond
strength of three bonding agents with metal and ceramic brack-
ets. Angle Orthod 1999;69:457-62.
30. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine
enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998;114:514-9.
31. Barkmeier WW, Los SA, Triolo PT. Bond strength and SEM
evaluation of Clearfil Liner Bond 2. Am J Dent 1995;8:289-93.
32. Meola MT, Papaccio G. A scanning electron microscope study of
the effect of etching time and mechanical pretreatment on the
pattern of acid etching on the enamel of primary teeth. Int Dent
J 1986;36:49-53.
33. Miyazaki M, Sato M, Onose H. Durability of enamel bond strength
of simplified bonding systems. Oper Dent 2000;25:75-80.
34. Abe Y, Lambrechts P, Inoue S, Braem MJA, Takeuchi M,
Vanherle G, et al. Dynamic elastic modulus of packable com-
posites. Dent Mater 2001;17:520-5.
35. Price RB, Derand T, Andreou P, Murphy D. The effect of two
configuration factors, time, and thermal cycling on resin to dentin
bond strengths. Biomaterials 2003;24:1013-21.
36. Øilo G, Austrheim EK. In vitro quality testing of dentin adhe-
sives. Acta Odontol Scand 1993;51:263-9.
37. Christensen GJ. Has tooth structure been replaced? J Am Dent
Assoc 2002;133:103-5.
38. ISO Technical Report 11405. Dental materials— guidance on
testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva: International
Organization for Standardization; 1994.
39. Hasegawa T, Retief DH, Russell CM, Denys FR. Shear bond
strength and quantitative microleakage of a multipurpose dental
adhesive system resin bonded to dentin. J Prosthet Dent 1995;73:
432-8.
40. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI. Effect of self-etching
primers on bond strength—are they reliable? Angle Orthod
2003;73:64-70.
41. Gwinnett AJ, Yu S. Effect of long-term water storage on dentin
bonding. Am J Dent 1995;8:109-11.
42. Kato G, Nakabayashi N. The durability of adhesion to phospho-
ric acid etched, wet dentin substrates. Dent Mater 1998;14:347-
52.
43. Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Tagami J. The influence of
storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement. J Dent
2000;16:1-6.
44. Cehreli ZC, Akca T. Effect of dentinal tubule orientation on the
microtensile bond strength to primary dentin. J Dent Child
2003;70:139-44.
45. Murray SD, Hobson RS. Comparison of in vivo and in vitro shear
bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:2-9.

BOUND VOLUMES AVAILABLE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Bound volumes of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
are available to subscribers (only) for the 2004 issues from the Publisher, at a cost of $96.00
($115.56 Canada and $108.00 international) for Vol. 125 (January-June) and Vol. 126
(July-December). Shipping charges are included. Each bound volume contains subject and
author indexes. The binding is durable buckram, with the journal name, volume number, and
year stamped in gold on the spine. Payment must accompany all orders. Contact Elsevier
Inc., Subscription Customer Service, 6277 Sea Harbor Dr, Orlando, FL 32887; phone
800-654-2452 or 407-345-4000.
Subscriptions must be in force to qualify. Bound volumes are not available in place
of a regular Journal subscription.