Comparative Study on Bonding Strength of One-step and Two-step Light-cured Adhesive Resins for Orthodontic Bracket Fixation

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2026.07.008

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of a novel one-step light-cured adhesive resin with two conventional two-step adhesive resins and evaluate their performance differences in bonding metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets. Methods: Standardized bonding molds (resin layer thickness 0.3 mm) were fabricated using maxillary first premolar crown models and 3D printing technology. ANOVA was used to compare the SBS of three resins (A: 3M, B: XIHUBIOM, C: OO, n=20). 120 extracted first premolars were divided into two main groups (metal/ceramic brackets), with each main group further subdivided into three subgroups (n=20) based on resin type. SBS was measured after 0 and 1000 thermal cycles, and multifactorial ANOVA combined with Tukey test was used for statistical analysis. Results: Resin cohesive strongth: Group A [(22.65±1.95) MPa] was significantly higher than Group C [(20.83±1.51) MPa], which in turn was significantly higher than Group B [(18.31±2.07) MPa, P<0.05]. In bracket bonding tests, for metal brackets, SBS of Group A [(21.39±1.90) MPa] significantly exceeded that of Groups B [(17.12±2.16) MPa] and C [(18.37±2.06) MPa, P<0.05], while no significant difference was observed between B and C. When comparing bracket types within the same resin, only Group A showed significantly higher SBS with metal than with ceramic brackets (P<0.05). Groups B and C showed no bracket-type-related differences. After thermal cycling, all groups exhibited a slight, non-significant decrease in SBS (P>0.05), with values remaining above the clinical acceptability threshold. Conclusion: The SBS values of novel one-step adhesive resin for both metal and ceramic brackets were intermediate between those of two conventional resin systems, which exceeded the clinically recommended threshold of 6-8 MPa and exhibited excellent resistance to thermocycling-induced aging. This adhesive system simplifies clinical procedures and effectively meets the bonding requirements for both types of orthodontic brackets.

Key words: one-step adhesive, two-step adhesive, adhesive resin, shear bond strength, metal brackets, ceramic brackets

CUI Mengya, SONG Wenlu, ZHONG Tingjin, CHEN Yuanqiang, HAN Yu, CHEN Ziyang, WU Jiangyu, JI Li. Comparative Study on Bonding Strength of One-step and Two-step Light-cured Adhesive Resins for Orthodontic Bracket Fixation[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2026, 42(7): 596-601.

References

[1] Masarykova N, Tkadlec E, Chlup Z, et al. Comparison of microleakage under orthodontic brackets bonded with five different adhesive systems: in vitro study [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 637.
[2] Pastrav M, Chisnoiu AM, Pastrav O, et al. Surface characteristics, fluoride release and bond strength evaluation of four orthodontic adhesives [J]. Materials, 2021, 14(13): 3578.
[3] Adıgüzel A, Yıldırım E. Microcomputed tomography assessment of microleakage and void formation under ceramic adhesive precoated orthodontic brackets [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2025, 167(2): 221-231.
[4] Al-Saleh M, El-Mowafy O. Bond strength of orthodontic brackets with new self-adhesive resin cements [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2010, 137(4): 528-533.
[5] Choi Y, Moon W, Manso AP, et al. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with primer-incorporated orthodontic adhesives and unpolymerized 3-dimensional printing materials on 3-dimensional-printed crowns [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2024, 165(6): 663-670.
[6] Chrószcz MW, Barszczewska-Rybarek IM, Kazek-Kęsik A. Novel antibacterial copolymers based on quaternary ammonium urethane-dimethacrylate analogues and triethylene glycol dimethacrylate [J]. Int J Mol Sci, 2022, 23(9): 4954.
[7] Abdelraouf RM, Mohammed M, Abdelgawad F. Evaluation of shear-bond-strength of dental self-adhering flowable resin-composite versus total-etch one to enamel and dentin surfaces: An in-vitro study [J]. Open Access Maced J Med Sci, 2019, 7(13): 2162-2166.
[8] Yoshida Y, Nagakane K, Fukuda R, et al. Comparative study on adhesive performance of functional monomers [J]. J Dent Res, 2004, 83(6): 454-458.
[9] Godoy-Bezerra J, Vieira S, Oliveira JH, et al. Shear bond strength of resin-modified glass ionomer cement with saliva present and different enamel pretreatments [J]. Angle Orthod, 2006, 76(3): 470-474.
[10] Profeta Krznar I, Par M, Tarle Z, et al. Influence of the bracket material on the post-cure degree of conversion of resin-based orthodontic adhesive systems [J]. Polymers, 2024, 16(3): 318.
[11] Alkattan R, Koller G, Banerji S, et al. Bis [2-(methacryloyloxy) ethyl] phosphate as a primer for enamel and dentine [J]. J Dent Res, 2021, 100(10): 1081-1089.
[12] Bourke BM, Rock WP. Factors affecting the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to porcelain [J]. Br J Orthod, 1999, 26(4): 285-290.
[13] Hajrassie MK, Khier SE. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times [J]. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop, 2007, 131(3): 384-390.
[14] Kim HJ, Kwon TY, Noh HK, et al. The effect of different mechanical retention forms on shear bond strength of rebonding of ceramic brackets [J]. Dent Mater J, 2024, 43(1): 84-89.
[15] Pinho M, Manso MC, Almeida RF, et al. Bond strength of metallic or ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel, acrylic, or porcelain surfaces [J]. Materials, 2020, 13(22): 5197.
[16] Ogata S, Takahashi Y. Moisture-induced reduction of adhesion strength between surface oxidized al and epoxy resin: dynamics simulation with electronic structure calculation [J]. J Phys Chem C, 2016, 120(25): 13630-13637.
[17] Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, et al. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: comparative in-vitro study [J]. J Clin Diagn Res, 2016, 10(11): ZC64-ZC68.
[18] Elekdag-Türk S. In vitro evaluation of a ceramic bracket with a laser-structured base [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2020, 20(1):17.
[19] Alexopoulou E, Polychronis G, Konstantonis D, et al. A study of the mechanical properties of as-received and intraorally exposed single-crystal and polycrystalline orthodontic ceramic brackets [J]. Eur J Orthod, 2020, 42(1): 72-77.
[20] Tayebi A, Fallahzadeh F, Morsaghian M. Shear bond strength of orthodontic metal brackets to aged composite using three primers [J]. J Clin Exp Dent, 2017, 9(6): e749-e755.
[21] Çokakoğlu S, Çakır E. Comparison of enamel demineralization and periodontal status between direct and digital indirect bonding techniques : A split-mouth clinical trial of direct vs. digital indirect bonding [J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2024, 85(6): 414-424.
[22] Veli I, Akin M, Baka ZM, et al. Effects of different pre-treatment methods on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets to demineralized enamel [J]. Acta Odontol Scand, 2016, 74(1): 7-13.
[23] Hofmann E, Elsner L, Hirschfelder U, et al. Effects of enamel sealing on shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index: Study of three fluoride-releasing adhesives in combination with metal and ceramic brackets [J]. J Orofac Orthop, 2017, 78(1):1-10.