Comparison of Adhesive Bond Strength between a Tooth with a Self-Ligating and a Ligature Brackets in vitro

Objective. To study the micromechanical bonding of brackets to the enamel surface under laboratory conditions using the fifth-generation composite «CompoFix Ortho» (Vladmiva, Russia) in comparison with the adhesive «Transbond XT» (USA), taking into account the bond strength to self-ligating and ligature brackets.

Materials and methods. To study the bond strength of brackets with samples consisting of 20 teeth (premolars) extracted for orthodontic indications without caries lesions, randomly divided into two groups of 10 teeth with direct bonding of brackets. Group 1 used self-ligating brackets, while Group 2 used ligature brackets. In both groups, the bond strength of the bracket to the enamel was studied with two types of adhesives: the adhesive and primer of the 5th generation composite «CompoFix Ortho» (RF) in comparison with «Transbond XT» (USA) with Orthos composite. Samples were tested for the presence of adhesive residues using the Adhesive Residue Index (ARI) scale.

Results. The average adhesive bond strength when detaching metal brackets from tooth enamel using the composite «CompoFix (Ortho)» (RF) and its foreign analogue «Transbond XT» (USA) was 7.6 ± 0.3 MPa (P ≥ 0.05), but statistically differed (P ≤ 0.05) between self-ligating (7.8 ± 0.3 MPa) and ligature brackets (7.1 ± 0.15 MPa).

Conclusion. The results of experimental studies demonstrate that the fifth-generation domestic adhesive complex «CompoFix (Ortho)» can be recommended for use in orthodontic practice for bonding metal brackets with two types of ligations to tooth enamel. The Adhesive Residue Index (ARI) showed a uniform adhesive bond between the metal bracket, the adhesive layer, and the enamel. Adhesion failure occurs uniformly between the adhesive layer and the metal bracket and the adhesive layer and the enamel when using the domestic adhesive complex and its foreign equivalent.

1. Alqahtani A.S. et al. (2022). Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Different Orthodontic Adhesives: An In Vitro Study // Journal of Orthodontics Research, 10(3),145–152.

2. Nemer A., Brago A.S., Razumov N.M., Artemova O.A., Razumova S.N. Shear adhesion strength of a universal adhesive with different enamel preparation methods before bracket bonding. Medical Alphabet. 2025;(20):32–37. https://doi.org/10.33667/2078-5631-2025-20-32-37.

3. Kumar R., & Singh P. (2023). Evaluation of Bond Strength of Self-Ligating vs. Conventional Brackets Using New Adhesives //European Journal of Orthodontics, 45(2),200–208.

4. Zhang L., et al. (2021). Influence of Adhesive Type on Shear Bond Strength of Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets // Journal of Dental Materials, 37(4), 459–468.

5. Patel S., & Mehta D. (2022). A Comparative Study of Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Adhesives with Different Bracket Types //American Journal of Orthodontics, 161(5),620–627.

6. Santos M., et al. (2023). Effect of Surface Treatment and Adhesive Type on Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets // Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 57(1),34–41.

7. Lee,J., & Kim H. (2024). Shear Bond Strength of Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets Using Innovative Adhesives // Dental Materials Journal, 43(2),213–221.

8. Ahmed S., & Rao S. (2021). Comparison of Bond Strengths in Different Orthodontic Adhesives: An In Vitro Analysis //Journal of Orthodontic Science, 10(1),12–19.

9. Garcia, P., et al. (2022). Impact of Adhesive Type and Bracket Design on Shear Bond Strength //International Journal of Orthodontics, 38(3),303–310.

10. Nguyen T., & Lee Y. (2023). Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength in Self-Ligating versus Conventional Brackets with New Adhesives //Journal of Dental Research, 102(6),567–574.

11. Martins F., et al. (2024). Bond Strength of Orthodontic Adhesives Under Different Clinical Conditions //Journal of Applied Oral Science, 32, e20240512.

12. Patel K., & Sharma R. (2021). Comparative Analysis of Bond Durability of Orthodontic Adhesives //Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research, 24(2),123–129.

13. Choi, S. et al. (2022). Shear Bond Strength of Self-Ligating and Conventional Brackets: A Systematic Review //Dental Materials, 38(4),523–534.

14. Lopez A., & Hernandez M. (2023). Effectiveness of Different Adhesives in Orthodontic Bonding: A Meta-Analysis // Journal of Orthodontics, 50(1),45–55.

15. Zhang Y., et al. (2024). New Adhesive Technologies and Their Impact on Bond Strength in Orthodontics //Journal of Dental Adhesion, 8(2),98–106.

16. Williams R., & Patel N. (2021). Assessment of Shear Bond Strength in Self-Ligating Brackets with Various Adhesives //Orthodontic Practice, 7(3),175–182.

17. Kim S., & Park J. (2022). Influence of Bracket Material and Adhesive on Bond Strength //International Journal of Orthodontics, 40(2),210–217.

18. Singh V., et al. (2023). Bond Strength of Different Orthodontic Adhesives: An In Vitro Study //Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 57(4),312–319.

19. Oliveira M., & Costa R. (2024). Shear Bond Strength of Self-Ligating vs. Conventional Brackets: A Comparative Study. //European Journal of Orthodontics, 46(1),89–96.

20. Park H., & Lee S. (2025). Advancements in Adhesive Materials and Their Effect on Bonding Performance //Journal of Dental Research, 104(2),134–142.

21. Kumar P., & Goyal R. (2025). Recent Innovations in Orthodontic Adhesives and Their Clinical Performance // Advances in Dental Science, 19(1),45–52.

22. Harradine NWT. Self Ligating brackets: where are we now? // J Orthod. 2003;30: 262–273.

23. Sofan E. еt al. Classifi review of dental adhesive systems: from the IV generation to the universal type /Annali di stomatologia. – 2017. – V. 8. – No. 1. – P. 1.

24. Hasan A.M., Kosyreva T.F., Tuturov N.S., Katbekh I., Garavi A.M.M., Salman I. Clinical observations of the debonding of metal brackets from tooth enamel using a domestic adhesive complex // Dentistry for Everyone. 2023, No. 2(103):58–63. doi: 10.35556/idr-2023-2(103)58-63.

25. Russian Federation Patent for Utility Model «Model for Determining the Strength of the Adhesive Bond of a Bracket with Structural Materials». Khasan A., Kosyreva T.F., Rusanov F.S., Tuturov N.S., Katbekh I. No. 220901 U1 Russian Federation, IPC G09B 23/28, G01N 3/24, A61C 7/12. Applicant Federal State Autonomous Educational Institution of Higher Education «Peoples’ Friendship University of Russia named after Patrice Lumumba». Published: 10.10.2023, Bulletin No. 28.

26. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment, Am J Orthod. 1984; 85:333-40.

27. Reynolds IR. A review of orthodontic bonding //Br J Orthod. 1975; 2:171–178.

28. Tavas MA, Watts DC. A visible light-activated direct bonding material: an in vitro comparative study // Br J Orthod. 1984;11:33–37.

29. Miles PG, Weyant RJ, Rustveld L. A clinical trial of Damon 2TM vs conventional twin brackets during initial alignment. //Angle Orthod. 2006;76:480–485.