Aim: To evaluate the effect of different enamel conditionings on the shear bond strength (SBS) and bond failure patterns of a resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) used to bond ceramic brackets. Methods: 105 human premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were divided into 7 groups according to the enamel surface treatments: conditioners (35% phosphoric acid and 10% polyacrylic acid), type of adhesive (Transbond(r) and Fuji Ortho LC Capsule(r)), washing time and drying of the surface. Results: A significant p<0.05 was observed among the shear bond strength values obtained with seven different types of enamel preparation prior to bonding. The group that had the tooth surface conditioned with polyacrylic acid and enamel surface slightly dried before bracket placement showed no significant difference (p>0.05) to the group that had brackets bonded with composite resin. The two groups that had enamel prepared with polyacrylic acid and brackets bonded with GIC on a wet surface showed significantly lower shear bond strength than the control group (p<0.05). Conclusions: Moisture contamination decreased SBS, but not enough to preclude the use of RMGIC as an alternative to composite resin (CR) for direct bonding of ceramic brackets.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of deproteinization with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) prior to enamel conditioning with 10% polyacrylic acid (PAA) and 35% phosphoric acid (PA) on the bond strength (BS) of brackets bonded with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). One hundred human premolars extracted for orthodontic reasons were divided into 5 groups (n = 20 in each group): G1 (control), enamel conditioning with PA, application of adhesive and bonding of brackets with TransbondTM XT composite resin (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA); G2, enamel conditioning with PAA and bonding with RMGIC (Fuji OrthoTM LC, GC America, Alsip, IL, USA); G3, NaOCl-treated enamel, conditioning with PAA and bonding with RMGIC; G4, enamel conditioning with PA and bonding with RMGIC; and G5, NaOCl-treated enamel, conditioning with PA and bonding with RMGIC. Once the brackets were bonded, the teeth were stored in distilled water for 24 hours at room temperature and pressure until being subjected to shear stress in a Universal Mechanical Testing Machine (EMIC® DL 500, São José dos Pinhais, PR, Brazil). The BS value was higher in G1 (17.08 ± 6.39) than in any of the experimental groups (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were noted between groups using RMGIC (p > 0.05), except between G3 (9.86 ± 2.90) and G5 (5.00 ± 2.49). No statistically significant differences were noted between the mean Adhesive Remnant Index values among the evaluated groups (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The use of NaOCl combined with PAA increased the BS of brackets bonded with RMGIC. The deproteinization of the group treated with PA reduced the shear bond strength of the brackets.