Authors : Dr. Subhashini S.; Dr. Anoosha T. S.; Dr. Sharath Kumar Shetty B.; Dr. Mahesh Kumar Y.

Volume/Issue : Volume 11 - 2026, Issue 4 - April

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/mt8m9vyj

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/34dre25n

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/26apr565

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Abstract : Aim and Objectives: The study aimed to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength of Wizdent Master Design - the Intelligent Adaptive Restorative, Shofu Beautifil Injectable-Fluoride releasing flowable restorative material, 3MTM FiltekTM Supreme flowable Restorative, Ormco Enlight Light Cure Adhesive, Ivoclar Tetric N-Flow for orthodontic metal bracket bonding with standard orthodontic adhesive-3M Unitek Transbond XT Light cure Adhesive Paste , and to compare the shear bond strength values among the six groups to determine relative performance.  Materials and Methods: 66 extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to six groups (n=11)  Group I: Wizdent Master Design - the Intelligent Adaptive Restorative  Group II: Shofu Beautifil Injectable-Fluoride releasing flowable material  Group III: 3MTM FiltekTM Supreme flowable  Group IV: Ormco Enlight Light Cure Adhesive  Group V: Ivoclar Tetric N Flow  Group VI: 3M Unitek Transbond XT Light cure Adhesive Paste (standard control adhesive) The freshly extracted premolar teeth were embedded on acrylic blocks with the buccal surface exposed. The enamel surface of the extracted tooth was polished with pumice slurry for 5 seconds and then rinsed with distilled water. This was then air-dried. The enamel was etched with 37% phosphoric acid for 30 seconds and rinsed for 10 seconds and then airdried for 30 seconds. Bonding agent was then applied and the brackets were bonded using respective adhesives and then cured for 20 seconds. Shear bond strength was tested in Universal testing machine and results were analyzed using one way Anova with Tukeys Posthoc Analysis[p<0.05]. Results: Tukeys Posthoc analysis revealed that the significant differences observed in ANOVA were mainly attributed to the higher performance of Ormco Enlight and 3M Filtek Supreme Flowable, while Wizdent Master Design, Shofu Beautifil Injectable demonstrated comparatively lower values. Transbond XT (3M Unitek) and Ivoclar Tetric N-Flow showed moderate performance, with minimal statistically significant differences between them. These results highlight the influence of material choice on both maximum load and shear bond strength.  Conclusion: Ormco Enlight Light Cure Adhesive and 3M Filtek Supreme Flowable demonstrated significantly higher shear bond strength and maximum load values, while Shofu Beautifil Injectable showed comparatively lower performance. Transbond XT and Ivoclar Tetric N-Flow exhibited intermediate bond strength within clinically acceptable limits. These findings indicate that material selection plays a crucial role in optimizing orthodontic bracket bonding, with orthodonticspecific adhesives and certain flowable composites providing superior bonding performance.

Keywords : Shear Bond Strength,Orthodontic Brackets,Wizdent Master Design,Ormco Enlight.

References :

1. Rai S, Prasad RR, Jain AK, Sahu A, Lall R, Thakur S. A comparative study of shear bond strength of four different   light cure orthodontic adhesives: An in vitro study. J Contemp Orthod. 2022;6(3):94–99. doi: 10.18231/j.jco.2022.018.
2. Jochebed RS, Kumar N. Comparison of shear bond strength using two orthodontic adhesives. Int J Recent Trends Innov. 2020;5(1)
3. Uysal T, Sari Z, Demir A. Are the flowable composites suitable for orthodontic bracket bonding? Angle Orthod.2004;74(5):697 702.doi:10.1043/00033219(2004)074<0697:ATFCSF>20.CO;2.
4. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod. 1965;51(12):901–912
5. Retief DH, Dreyer CJ. The direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth by means of an epoxy resin adhesive. Angle Orthod. 1970;40(3):183–189.
6. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2(3):171–178.
7. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, Damon P, Jakobsen JR. Evaluation of a new light-cured orthodontic bonding adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;114(1):80–87. doi:10.1016/S0889-5406(98)70242-2.
8. McSherry PF, Cunningham JL. Factors affecting the bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel using glass ionomer cement. Eur J Orthod. 2000;22(5):513–522.
9. Sfondrini MF, Cacciafesta V, Scribante A, De Angelis M, Klersy C. Use of flowable composites for orthodontic bracket bonding. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(6):1105–1109.
10. Finnema KJ, Özcan M, Post WJ, Ren Y, Dijkstra PU. In vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Orthod. 2010;32(5):471.
11. Mathur T, Chandra P, Tandon R, Singh K. Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study. Asian J Oral Health Allied Sci. 2025;15:18. doi:10.25259/AJOHAS_31_2025.
12. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF. Effect of thermocycling on shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate orthodontic adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001;120(3):266–273
13. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, De Angelis M, Scribante A, Klersy C. Effect of different light sources on the shear bond strength of brackets bonded with orthodontic adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005;128(5):616–623