Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers


Share / Export Citation / Email / Print / Text size:

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

Australian Society of Orthodontists

Subject: Dentistry, Orthodontics & Medicine


ISSN: 2207-7472
eISSN: 2207-7480





Volume / Issue / page

Volume 37 (2021)
Volume 36 (2020)
Volume 35 (2019)
Volume 34 (2018)
Volume 33 (2017)
Volume 32 (2016)
Volume 31 (2015)
Related articles

VOLUME 31 , ISSUE 2 (November 2015) > List of articles

Shear bond strength of different fixed orthodontic retainers

Kazem Al-Nimri * / Jareer Al-Nimri

Citation Information : Australasian Orthodontic Journal. Volume 31, Issue 2, Pages 178-183, DOI:

License : (CC BY 4.0)

Published Online: 15-August-2021



Objective: To compare the shear bond strength of different fixed retainer wire diameters bonded using a conventional composite resin or a specific retainer composite.

Materials and methods: One-hundred-and-twenty extracted human premolar teeth were divided into six groups. After conventional acid etching with a 37% phosphoric acid gel for 30 seconds, twist flex wires of various diameters (0.0175”, 0.0215”, 0.032”) were bonded as fixed retainers. Conventional bracket adhesive (Filtek Z250) or retainer specific adhesives (Transbond LR) were used. After curing, the specimens were stored for 24 hours in distilled water at 37°C and, thereafter, subjected to 500 thermal cycles. The specimens were then debonded using a Universal Instron machine. The site of failure was recorded for each specimen and the shear bond strength calculated. Statistical analyses were provided using a Chi-square test for failure site and a two-way ANOVA test to assess shear bond strength.

Results: The site of failure was predominantly at the wire composite interface in all groups. The specific retainer composite showed a significantly higher shear bond strength compared with conventional composite (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between the three wire diameters (p < 0.001); the 0.0215” wire had the highest shear bond strength, whereas the 0.032” wire had the least shear bond strength.

Conclusions: The site of failure was unrelated to wire diameter or adhesive. The optimal combination to maximise the bond strength of fixed retainers appeared to be a specific retainer adhesive and a wire diameter of 0.0215”.

Content not available PDF Share



1. Cerny R. The reliability of bonded lingual retainers. Aust Orthod J 2007;23:24-9.

2. Cerny R. Re: Fixed lingual retention and relapse. Aust Orthod J 2001;17:19A.

3. Bearn DR, McCabe JF, Gordon PH, Aird JC. Bonded orthodontic retainers: the wire-composite interface. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111:67-74.

4. Baysal A, Uysal T. Resin-modified glass ionomer cements for bonding orthodontic retainers. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:254-8.

5. Årtun J, Spadafora AT, Shipiro PA, McNeill RW, Chapko MK. Hygeine status associated with different types of bonded, orthodontic canine-to-canine retainers: a clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 1987;14:89-94.

6. Zachrisson BU, Büyükyilmaz T. Bonding in orthodontics. In: Graber TM, Vanarsdall RL, Vig KWL. Orthodontics: current principles and techniques, 4th Edition. St. Louis: Elsevier Inc., 2005:579-659.

7. Moon PC, Tabassian MS, Culbreath TE. Flow characteristics and film thickness of flowable resin composites. Oper Dent 2002;27:248-53.

8. Tabrizi S, Salemis E, Usumez S. Flowable composites for bonding orthodontic retainers. Angle Orthod 2010;80:195-200.

9. Radlanski RJ, Zain ND. Stability of the bonded lingual wire retainer-a study of initial bond strength. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:321-35.

10. International organization for standardization. Technical specification report. Dental materials -- Testing of adhesion to tooth structure, ISO/TS 11405:2003.

11. 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.

12. Knierim RW. Invisible lower cuspid to cuspid retainer. Angle Orthod 1973;43:218-20.

13. Al-Nimri K, Al-Habashneh R, Obeidat M. Gingival health and relapse tendency: a prospective study of two types of lower fixed retainers. Aust Orthod J 2009;25:142-6.

14. Ulker M, Uysal T, Ramoglu SI, Ucar FI. Bond strengths of an antibacterial monomer-containing adhesive system applied with and without acid etching for lingual retainer bonding. Eur J Orthod 2009;31:658-63.

15. Bearn DR. Bonded orthodontic retainers: a review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:207-13.

16. Craig RG, Powers JM. Restorative Dental materials, 11th Edition. St. Louis, Missouri: Mosby Inc., 2002;231-85.

17. Anusavice KJ. Phillips’ science of dental materials, 11th Edition. St. Louis, Missouri: Saunders Elsevier, 2003;34-48, 381-441.

18. Arhun N, Arman A, Cehreli SB, Arikan S, Karabulut E, Gülşahi K. Microleakage beneath ceramic and metal brackets bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial adhesive system. Angle Orthod 2006;76:1028-34.

19. Wahab FK, Shaini FJ, Morgano SM. The effect of thermocycling on microleakage of several commercially available composite Class V restorations in vitro. J Prosthet Dent 2003;90:168-74.

20. Cooke ME, Sherriff M. Debonding force and deformation of two multi-stranded lingual retainer wires bonded to incisor enamel: an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:741-6.

21. Sokucu O, Siso SH, Ozturk SF, Nalcaci R. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cured with different light sources under thermocycling. Eur J Dent 2010;4:257-62.

22. Orsborn DB. Bonded lingual retainers. Am J Orthod 1983;83:218-20.

23. Wasserstein A, Brezniak N. Use of disclosing material to detect fixed retainer bond failures. J Clin Orthod 1998;32:598-9.