Award Date


Degree Type


Degree Name

Master of Science (MS)


Dental Medicine

First Committee Member

Brendan J. O'Toole

Second Committee Member

James K. Mah

Third Committee Member

Richard S. Walker

Fourth Committee Member

Mohamed B. Trabia

Number of Pages



Purpose:The aim of this study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of two adhesion promoters, EnhancetmLC and AssureRUniversal Bonding Resin, and their effects with two different adhesion systems (Light Bondtmand TransbondtmXT). To better understand their behavior upon failure, the amount of adhesive remnant remaining on the tooth surface was also observed.

Methods:One-hundred forty human premolars, which were extracted for reasons other than this study, were utilized and divided into seven groups of 20 teeth each. Groups A1 and B1 were bonded without adhesion promoters and with two different adhesive systems - Light Bondtmand TransbondtmXT. Groups A2 and B2 were bonded using EnhancetmLC. Groups A3 and B3 were bonded using AssureRUniversal Bonding Resin. Group C, a third reference control, was bonded with TransbondtmPlus Self Etching Primer, not amenable with the adhesion promoter bonding protocol. A Universal Testing Machine was used to create bond failure and obtain the shear bond strength (SBS). After debonding, teeth and brackets were scored with a modified adhesive remnant index (ARI). Kruskal-Wallis with a Post-Hoc Bonferroni tests were completed on all SBS and ARI data.

Results:This study demonstrated that no significant differences were found in SBS of samples bonded with adhesion promoters, relative to their controls. Groups bonded with AssureRUniversal Bonding Resin had significantly higher ARI scores than the control groups and groups bonded with EnhancetmLC. Shear bond Strengths achieved with the self-etching primer were comparable to conventional bond strengths with and without adhesion promoters. ARI scores for the self-etching primer resulted in more adhesive remnant than conventional bonding.

Conclusions:The application of adhesion promoters, EnhancetmLC and AssureRUniversal Bonding Resin, did not significantly increase SBS compared to non-adhesion promoter bonding with either adhesive system (TransbondtmXT and Light Bondtm) upon normal enamel. The adhesion promoters did not demonstrate a material-specific predilection for one adhesive system over another. Since groups bonded with AssureRUniversal Bonding Resin had significantly higher ARI scores than control groups and groups bonded with EnhancetmLC, more adhesive removal from the tooth will be required following debonding.


Adhesion; Bond; Booster; Dental adhesives; Dental bonding; Promoter; Shear; Strength; Strength of materials


Dental Materials | Dentistry | Orthodontics and Orthodontology

File Format


Degree Grantor

University of Nevada, Las Vegas




IN COPYRIGHT. For more information about this rights statement, please visit