ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Effect of thermocycling on the shear bond

strength of a cyanoacrylate orthodontic
adhesive
Samir E. Bishara, BDS, D Ortho, DDS, MS,a Raed Ajlouni, BDS, MS,b and John F. Laffoon, BSc
Iowa City, Iowa

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of thermocycling on the shear bond strength of a
cyanoacrylate adhesive system, specifically 24 hours after bonding when the adhesive has achieved most of
its bond strength and after thermocycling. Forty freshly extracted human molars were collected and stored
in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume) thymol. The teeth were cleaned, polished, and randomly separated into
2 groups: group I, cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded after 24 hours immersion in deionized water at 37°C;
and group II, cyanoacrylate adhesive debonded after thermocycling at 5°C and 55°C. The results of the t test
comparing the 2 groups (t ⫽ 6.84) indicated significant differences between them (P ⫽ .0001). The
cyanoacrylate adhesive at 24 hours had significantly greater shear bond strength (x៮ ⫽ 7.1 ⫾ 3.3 MPa) than
after thermocycling 500 times between 5°C and 55°C (x៮ ⫽ 1.5 ⫾ 1.4 MPa). The findings indicated that the
cyanoacrylate adhesive tested has clinically adequate shear bond strength at 24 hours after initial bonding
but loses about 80% of its strength after thermocycling. The clinician should consider all properties of the
adhesive, including no need for a curing light, working time of 5 seconds before the adhesive starts to set,
and the significant decrease in bond strength after thermocycling. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;
123:21-4)

D
irect bonding of orthodontic brackets has been
advocated since the late 1960s.1-5 With the
introduction of photosensitive (light-cured) re-
storative materials in dentistry, various methods have
been suggested to enhance the polymerization of the
materials used, including layering and more powerful
light-curing devices. In addition, other factors can
potentially contribute to the bond strength between the
enamel and the orthodontic bracket, including type of
enamel conditioner, acid concentration, length of etch-
ing time, composition of the adhesive, bracket base
design, bracket material, oral environment, and clini-
cian’s skill.6-14
Two critical factors that affect bond strength of
adhesives are the times and the conditions at which
testing is performed after bonding. Ferracane et al15
evaluated the long-term effect of aging in water at 37°C
on the physical properties of composites for 1 day and
From the College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City.
a
Professor of Orthodontics.
b
Private practice.
c
Research assistant.
Submitted, April 2002; revised and accepted, June 2002.
Reprint requests to: S. E. Bishara, Department of Orthodontics, University of
Iowa, College of Dentistry, Iowa City, IA 52242-1001.
Copyright © 2003 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
0889-5406/2003/$30.00 ⫹ 0
doi:10.1067/mod.2003.1
6, 12, and 24 months. They found a 20%-30% reduc-
tion in fracture toughness of the composites after 6
months with very little change thereafter.
Ruse et al16 investigated the bond strength after
cyclic shear loading test of cylinders of light-cured
hybrid composite resin (Scotch Bond Multi Purpose)
bonded to flattened enamel surfaces of human teeth at
1 hour and 1, 7, and 30 days. They found a significant
increase in the shear bond strength between 1 hour and
24 hours. By the seventh day, there was a significant
decrease that was maintained by day 30.
Because orthodontic adhesives are routinely sub-
jected to thermal changes in the oral cavity, it is
important to determine whether these temperature vari-
ations introduce stresses in the adhesive that might
influence its bond strength. Therefore, any new adhe-
sive should be tested both at 24 hours and after thermal
cycling. According to Gale and Darvell,17 it is difficult
to measure the routine limits of temperature changes
introduced by eating and drinking. This is because
these activities are essentially erratic habits, and signif-
icant variations occur between subjects and within the
same person depending on the location in the same
mouth. They suggested that air temperature, humidity,
and air velocity when breathing can also radically alter
resting mouth temperature.17 Gale and Darvell17
pointed to the lack of agreement and standardization
21
22 Bishara, Ajlouni, and Laffoon
between the various thermocycling studies they re-
viewed.
Because of these difficulties, the International Or-
ganization for Standardization has suggested specific
criteria for conducting such tests to enable investigators
and industry to interpret and compare results.18
More recently, a new adhesive was introduced that
does not require the use of a primer or a curing light
during bonding. In a recent study, Örtendahl and
Örtengren19 compared the bond strength of a cyanoac-
rylate adhesive with 8 other adhesives. They found that
after 24 hours the new adhesive performed as well as or
better than the composite resins used for bonding both
metal and plastic brackets. The cyanocrylate adhesive
has not been tested under conditions partially simulat-
ing the oral environment.
The purpose of this study was to compare the
effects of thermocycling on the shear bond strength of
a cyanoacrylate adhesive, specifically (1) after 24 hours
of conventional storage in water when it has achieved
most of its bond strength, and (2) after thermocyling
between 5°C and 55°C to simulate some of the tem-
perature changes in the oral cavity.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Forty freshly extracted human molars were col-
lected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (weight/volume)
thymol. The criteria for tooth selection included intact
buccal enamel, not subjected to any pretreatment chem-
ical agents (eg, hydrogen peroxide), no cracks from the
pressure of the extraction forceps, and no caries.
The teeth were cleaned and then polished with
nonfluoridated pumice and rubber prophylactic cups for
10 seconds.
Maxillary central incisor brackets were used to
bond all teeth (Victory Series, 3M Unitek, Monrovia,
Calif). The average surface area of the bracket base was
determined to be 11.7 mm2.
Smartbond adhesive (Gestenco International, Göth-
enburg, Sweden) contains ethyl-cyanoacrylate. The
bonding procedure followed the manufacturer’s in-
structions. A 35% phosphoric acid etch was applied to
the enamel for 10 seconds, and the teeth were washed
thoroughly for 20 seconds and air dried. A moist cotton
roll was used to wet the enamel surface before the
adhesive was applied.
The manufacturer recommends 2 methods of apply-
ing the adhesive to the bracket base— either directly
from the syringe containing the adhesive or with a
microbrush. In this study, the brush method was used
because it allowed for the controlled application of a
uniform thickness of the adhesive on the bracket base.
Each bracket was subjected to a compressive force
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 2003
of 300 g with a force gauge (Correx Co, Bern, Swit-
zerland) for 10 seconds; then excess bonding resin was
removed with a sharp scaler. The teeth were placed in
distilled water.
Until the cyanoacrylate adhesive is placed on the
wet enamel surface, it will not readily set. Once it
comes into contact with the wet enamel surface, the
clinician has 3 to 5 seconds to adjust the placement of
the bracket before the adhesive starts to set. According
to the manufacturer, the adhesive will be sufficiently set
in 3 to 5 minutes, when the initial archwires can be
ligated. According to the manufacturer, the adhesive
attains 70% of its ultimate bond strength within 10
minutes, 80% within 1 hour, and full strength within 12
hours.
After bonding, the teeth were randomly divided into
2 groups of 20. The teeth in group I were debonded
after 24 hours immersion in deionized water at 37° C.
The teeth in group II were debonded after thermocycling.
According to the International Organization for
Standardization’s recommendation,18 test specimens
were prepared at 23°C ⫾ 2°C and stored in water at
37°C ⫾ 2°C before testing at room temperature. The
teeth were stored in water for 24 hours to discriminate
between materials that can and cannot withstand a wet
environment.18
The thermocycling test comprising 500 cycles in
water, between 5°C and 55°C, was started after 24
hours storage in water at 37°C. The exposure to each
bath was 20 seconds, and the transfer time between
baths was between 5 and 10 seconds.
Before bonding, the teeth were embedded in acrylic
placed in phenolic rings (Buchler Ltd, Lake Bluff, Ill).
A mounting jig was used to align the facial surface of
the tooth to be perpendicular with the bottom of the
mold; ie, each tooth was oriented so that its labial
surface would be parallel to the force during the shear
strength test. A steel rod with a flattened end was
attached to the crosshead of a test machine (Zwick
GmbH, Ulm, Germany). An occlusogingival load was
applied to the bracket, producing a shear force at the
bracket-tooth interface. A computer electronically con-
nected to the test machine recorded the results of each
test. Shear bond strengths were measured at a crosshead
speed of 5 mm/minute.
Descriptive statistics including the mean, standard
deviation, and minimum and maximum values were
calculated for each of the 2 groups tested. The Student
t test was used to determine whether significant differ-
ences existed between the 2 groups. The significance
for all statistical tests was predetermined at P ⱕ .05.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 123, Number 1
Table. Descriptive statistics and results of Student t
test comparing shear bond strengths of cyanoacrylate
adhesive before and after thermocycling
Groups tested n x៮ SD Range
I. After 24 hours 20 7.1 3.3 1.4-13.2
II. After thermocycling 20 1.5 1.4 0.1-6.5
t test ⫽ 6.84; P ⫽ .0001.
RESULTS
The descriptive statistics for the shear bond strength
are presented in the Table. The results of the t test
comparing the 2 experimental groups (t ⫽ 6.84) indi-
cated significant differences between them (P ⫽ .0001).
The mean shear bond strengths of the cyanoacrylate
adhesive were 7.1 ⫾ 3.3 MPa at 24 hours after bonding
and 1.5 ⫾ 1.4 MPa after thermocycling.
DISCUSSION
Clinicians should be aware of the properties of the
adhesive systems they use so that they can optimize
their ability to handle them properly and efficiently.
The present findings indicated that the shear bond
strength of the cyanoacrylate adhesive was significantly
stronger at 24 hours than after thermocycling.
Reynolds20 suggested that a minimum tensile bond
strength of 5.9 to 7.8 MPa is adequate for most clinical
orthodontic needs. Newman1 believes that orthodontic
forces seldom if ever exceed 10 lbs (4.5 kg) or 200 psi
(1.4 MPa) shear force. Nevertheless, masticatory forces
alone or combined with forces from orthopedic-type
appliances significantly exceed these values.21 Accord-
ing to Kiliaridis et al,22 maximum bite forces can have
means as high as 651 ⫾ 196 N in men and 556 ⫾ 128
N in women. These means are equivalent to 60 to 70 kg
of force. Furthermore, chewing bite forces vary among
tooth types, from a mean of 113 N for incisors to 128
N for canines and 140 N for premolars in men and
almost half these values in women.22 Therefore, these
mean values range between 7 and 16 kg force with very
large standard deviations. This significant variation in
chewing bite force between people and between differ-
ent sites in the same person’s mouth provides 1
explanation for bracket failure. As a result, the adhesive
bond strength must be able to withstand orthodontic
and chewing forces that will be applied to the appliance
in the oral environment.
Smartbond provided adequate shear bond strengths
at 24 hours after bonding but not after thermocycling,
as a result of an 80% drop in its mean shear bond force.
The decision to use this adhesive is influenced by a
number of factors, including (1) no need to use a curing
Bishara, Ajlouni, and Laffoon 23
light, (2) a relatively short working time of 5 seconds to
properly position the bracket before it starts to set, and
(3) a significant decrease in bond strength after ther-
mocycling.
CONCLUSIONS
The present findings indicated that (1) Smartbond
cyanoacrylate adhesive has adequate bond strength 24
hours after initial bonding, but its strength decreases by
80% after thermocycling between 5°C and 55°C; and
(2) the clinician must consider the properties of the
various adhesive systems available, including bond
strength and working time.
REFERENCES
1. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments:
progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51:901-12.
2. Newman GV. Adhesion and orthodontic plastic attachments.
Am J Orthod 1969;56:573-8.
3. Newman GV, Snyder WH, Wilson CW. Acrylic adhesives for
bonding attachments to tooth surfaces. Angle Orthod 1968;38:12-8.
4. Retief DH, Dreyer CJ, Gavron G. The direct bonding of
orthodontic attachments to teeth by means of an epoxy resin
adhesive. Am J Orthod 1970;58:21-40.
5. Mulholland RD, DeShazer DO. The effect of acidic pretreatment
solutions on the direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Angle
Orthod 1968;38:236-43.
6. Surmont P, Dermaut L, Martens L, Moors M. Comparison in
shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets between five bonding
systems related to different etching times: an in vitro study. Am J
Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992;101:414-9.
7. Britton JC, McInnes P, Weinberg R, Ledoux WR, Retief DH.
Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;98:348-53.
8. Mizrahi E, Smith DC. Direct cementation of orthodontic brackets
to dental enamel. Br Dent J 1969;127:371-5.
9. Zachrisson BU. Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and
supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod
1976;69:285-300.
10. Retief DH. A comparative study of three etching solutions:
effects on contact angle, rate of etching, and tensile bond
strength. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:381-9.
11. Thanos CE, Munholland T, Caputo AA. Adhesion of meshbase
direct bonding brackets. Am J Orthod 1979;75:421-30.
12. Gorelick L. Bonding metal brackets with a self-polymerizing
sealant-composite: a 12-month assessment. Am J Orthod 1977;
71:542-53.
13. Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct
versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhe-
sives. Am J Orthod 1978;74:62-77.
14. Wickwire NA, Rentz D. Enamel pretreatment: a critical variable
in direct bonding systems. Am J Orthod 1973;64:499-512.
15. Ferracane JL, Berge HX, Condon JR. In vitro aging of dental
composites in water: effect of degree of conversion, filler
volume, and filler/matrix compiling. J Biomed Mater Res 1998;
42:465-72.
16. Ruse ND, Shew R, Feduik D. In vitro fatigue testing of a dental
bonding system on enamel. J Biomed Mater Res 1995;29:411-5.
17. Gale MS, Darvell BW. Thermal cycling procedures for labora-
tory testing of dental restorations. J Dent 1999;27:89-99.
18. Dental materials— guidance on testing of adhesion to tooth
24 Bishara, Ajlouni, and Laffoon American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
January 2003

structure. International Organization for Standardization Techni-
cal Report (ISO TR 11405); 1994.
19. Örtendahl TW, Örtengren U. A new orthodontic bonding adhe-
sive. J Clin Orthod 2000;34:50-4.
20. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J
Orthod 1979;2:171-8.
21. Jenkins GN. The physiology of the mouth. Philadelphia: F. A.
Davis; 1966. p. 422-26.
22. Kiliaridis S, Johansson A, Haraldson T, Omar R, Carlsson GE.
Craniofacial morphology, occlusal traits, and bite force in per-
sons with advanced occlusal tooth wear. Am J Orthod Dentofa-
cial Orthop 1995;107:286-92.

Editors of the American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

1915 to 1931 Martin Dewey
1931 to 1968 H. C. Pollock
1968 to 1978 B. F. Dewel
1978 to 1985 Wayne G. Watson
1985 to 2000 Thomas M. Graber
2000 to present David L. Turpin