{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.040129449838187704, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013592233009708738, 'mean_word_length': 5.310204081632653, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 3, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The effect of saliva on shear bond strengths of hydrophilic bonding systems.

Failure of orthodontic bonded attachments and brackets is mostly attributed to contamination of the enamel surface. To overcome this problem, materials have been developed that purportedly overcome the moisture and contaminants present in the oral environment. This study compared the shear bond strengths of 2 lightcured hydrophilic bonding systems, Transbond XT with MIP (3M/Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and Assure (Reliance Orthodontics, Itasca, Ill) with a hydrophobic bonding system, Transbond XT with XT primer (3M/Unitek). Comparison tests were conducted under 4 enamel surface conditions: (1) etched and dried; (2) etched and moistened with artificial saliva; (3) etched, primed, and moistened with artificial saliva; and (4) etched, primed, moistened with artificial saliva, and reprimed. In addition, an adhesive remnant index score was used to determine the amount of adhesive remaining on the tooth. Stainless steel brackets with mesh-backed pads (n = 144) were bonded to bovine teeth. Bond strength was then tested in shear using an Instron mechanical testing instrument. There were significant differences in the bond strengths among the products (P <.05), within surface treatments (P <.05), and among the different bonding materials in combination with various surface treatments (P <.05). Treatments 1 and 4 showed the highest mean bond strengths adhesive remnant index scores, whereas treatments 2 and 3 showed the lowest mean bond strengths and scores.