Abstract
Objective: (1) The aim of this study was to measure the shear bond strengths (SBSs) of Clarity advanced ceramic bracket with APC (TM) Flash-free adhesive in comparison to regular resin-based adhesive (APC II adhesive), when light cured with either a major manufacturer's LED (Elipar (TM) S10) or a low-budget LED (Woodpecker (TM) LED). Materials and Methods: Forty extracted caries-free human maxillary first premolar teeth were randomly divided into four groups. Group 1: 10 Clarity (TM) ADVANCED Ceramic Brackets with APC (TM) II Adhesive, cured by Elipar (TM) S10 LED. Group 2: 10 Clarity (TM) ADVANCED Ceramic Brackets with APC (TM) Flash-Free Adhesive, cured by Elipar (TM) S10 LED. Group 3: 10 Clarity (TM) ADVANCED Ceramic Brackets with APC (TM) II Adhesive, cured by Woodpecker (TM) LED. B. Group 4: 10 Clarity (TM) ADVANCED Ceramic Brackets with APC (TM) Flash-Free Adhesive, cured by Woodpecker (TM) LED. B. The shear bond strength was tested using the Instron universal testing machine (Instron (R)) and recorded in MPa. Student's t-test, analysis of variance, and post-hoc Tukey's tests at (p < 0.05) were used for the statistical analysis. Result: The SBS ranged from 12.56 to 14.12 MPa. There was no significant difference found between the APC (TM) Flash-Free Adhesive and the APC (TM) II Transbond (TM) Adhesive samples. Although the Elipar (TM) S10 Curing Light sample exhibited slightly higher SBS than the Woodpecker (TM) LED. B sample, this difference was shown to be insignificant. Conclusion: APC (TM) Flash-Free Adhesive is equally effective bonding system. There was little difference between the bond strengths produced by the Elipar (TM) S10 and the Woodpecker (TM) LED. B Curing Lights.