Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 1

Original Article

Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding

materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Tushar Mathur1, Pratik Chandra1, Ragni Tandon1, Kamlesh Singh1

1Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Saraswati Dental College and Hospital, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, India.

INTRODUCTION

Dr. Edward Hartley Angle, widely recognized as the “father of modern orthodontics,” significantly

advanced the field through his pioneering ideas and numerous innovations. Despite his extensive

expertise, orthodontic treatment during his time required the banding of all teeth to facilitate

movement. This approach led to a conspicuous metallic appearance in the mouth, which many

patients found unappealing. Beyond esthetics, banding posed several drawbacks, such as

difficulty in maintaining oral hygiene, the need for pre-treatment tooth separation, longer chairside

procedures, increased gingival irritation, and overall discomfort for patients.[1]

To address the drawbacks associated with full banding, the concept of directly bonding brackets

to the enamel surface was introduced. A major breakthrough came in 1955 when Dr. Michael

Buonocore introduced the acid etching technique, which proved to be a significant advancement

for orthodontics.[1] This method enhanced the adhesion of bonding materials to enamel.

Subsequently, in 1956, Bowen developed a resin known as bisphenol A-glycidyl methacrylate

(Bis-GMA) – composed of Bis-GMA – which became a foundational component of dental

ABSTRACT

Objectives: The objective of the study is to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of two orthodontic

bonding materials – Transbond XT and Enlight-cured under standardized light intensity and exposure conditions.

Material and Methods: A split-mouth in vivo study was conducted on 60 patients undergoing fixed orthodontic

treatment. Maxillary first premolars – Tooth #14 (right) and Tooth #24 (left) – scheduled for extraction were

selected. In Group 1, brackets were bonded using Transbond XT (3M) on Tooth #14, while in Group 2, Enlight

(Ormco) was used on Tooth #24. After 24 h, brackets were debonded using a modified debonding plier and a

digital force gauge, and the SBS was recorded.

Results: Transbond XT demonstrated a slightly higher mean SBS (9.875 ± 0.786 MPa) compared to Enlight

(9.648 ± 0.811 MPa). The difference was 2.29% and statistically significant (P < 0.001), though it was not

significant across subgroups based on age or gender.

Conclusion: Both bonding agents produced clinically acceptable SBS values. While Transbond XT exhibited

marginally superior bond strength overall, the clinical difference between the two materials was minimal.

Key words: Dental adhesives, Enlight (Ormco), Orthodontic bonding, Shear strength, Split-mouth design,

Transbond XT

is is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-Share Alike 4.0 License, which allows others

to remix, transform, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as the author is credited and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

©2025 Published by Scientific Scholar on behalf of Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences

www.ajohas.com

Asian Journal of Oral Health and

Allied Sciences

*Corresponding author:

Tushar Mathur,

Department of Orthodontics

and Dentofacial Orthopedics,

Saraswati Dental College,

Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, India.

tusharmathur27@gmail.com

Received: 20 June 2025

Accepted: 21 July 2025

Published: 11 September 2025

DOI

10.25259/AJOHAS_31_2025

Quick Response Code:

Mathur, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 2

adhesives. By 1962, he successfully incorporated Bis-GMA

into composite resins, making it a widely used bonding

agent in dentistry.[2] These innovations laid the groundwork

for Dr. Newman, who performed the first successful direct

bonding of orthodontic brackets in 1965.[3]

Numerous techniques, such as layering and the use of

more potent light-curing equipment, were recommended

to improve the polymerization of photosensitive (lightcured)

restorative materials once they were introduced in

dentistry. This development has benefited orthodontics, and

the producers have created a variety of light-cured adhesive

solutions to attach these orthodontic brackets. The main

benefit of light-curing adhesive methods is that they provide

the dentist enough time to precisely place the bracket on the

enamel surface before the glue is polymerized by light. Visible

light-cured composites are simple to use, have a longer

working period, better bracket positioning, are simpler to

clean up, and cure composites more quickly.[4] In 1979, Tavas

and Watts were the first to introduce light-cured materials for

orthodontic bonding in an in vitro setting.[5]

Orthodontic treatment has advanced significantly,

particularly with innovations in bonding systems that

ensure effective bracket placement. A critical factor in the

success of these systems is the shear bond strength (SBS) of

the adhesive materials. SBS determines the adhesive’s ability

to withstand masticatory and orthodontic forces during

treatment. Among many commercially available materials,

Transbond eXtra Tough (3M) and Enlight (Ormco) are

two popular light-cured adhesives widely used in fixed

orthodontic procedures. This split-mouth study compares

these bonding agents and summarizes a recent in vivo study

evaluating their efficacy.

Advancements in orthodontic adhesive technology have led

to the introduction of sophisticated light-cured bonding

agents that promise superior clinical efficacy. Among these,

Enlight (Ormco) has gained attention as a contemporary

alternative to the well-established Transbond XT (3M).

Despite their widespread use, there remains a paucity

of rigorous in vivo data directly comparing their SBS

under standardized clinical conditions. Such comparative

evaluations are essential to inform evidence-based clinical

decision-making regarding the optimal adhesive system

for ensuring reliable bracket retention. The split-mouth

study design offers a methodological advantage by allowing

intra-patient comparison, thereby minimizing biological

variability and enhancing the validity of outcomes.

Accordingly, the present study aimed to evaluate and

compare the SBS of Transbond XT and Enlight using a

split-mouth in vivo design, to determine which material

demonstrates superior performance in clinical orthodontic

bonding applications.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This in vivo split-mouth comparative study was conducted

over a period of 12 months, from January 2023 to December

2023, on 60 patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment

involving the extraction of maxillary first premolars. The

minimum sample size was calculated using G*Power

software (version 3.1). Based on a paired t-test, assuming an

effect size of 0.4, an alpha level of 0.05, and a statistical power

of 80%, the required sample size was 52 sites per group. To

enhance the reliability of results and account for potential

dropouts, the final sample size was increased to 60 sites per

group, comprising a total of 120 sites, as depicted in Figure 1.

Each patient served as their own control. In Group 1,

brackets were bonded with Transbond XT on tooth 14, while

in Group 2, Enlight was used on tooth 24. Brackets were

cured using a Woodpecker light-emitting diode (LED) lightcuring

unit at an intensity of 1000 mW/cm2 for 10 s. After

24 h, brackets were debonded, and the shear bond strength

(SBS) was measured using a digital force gauge as shown in

Figure 2.

The procedure utilized a consistent armamentarium to ensure

standardization. This included Transbond XT and Enlight

adhesives, metal premolar brackets with a 0.022-inch slot

Metro McLaughlin, Bennett and Trevisi (MBT) prescription,

a 37% phosphoric acid etchant, a Woodpecker LED curing

unit, a light intensity meter, bracket-holding tweezer, MBT

gauge, probe, mouth mirror, and applicator tip. A modified

orthodontic debonding plier [Figure 3] connected to a digital

force gauge (SHIMPO, FGN-50B) was used to quantify the

force required for bracket debonding.

Patients were selected based on inclusion criteria comprising

fully erupted, healthy maxillary first premolars (tooth

numbers 14 and 24) scheduled for extraction. Exclusion

criteria included non-vital or carious teeth, fluorosis, enamel

hypoplasia, partially erupted or impacted premolars, and

dental anomalies such as microdontia or macrodontia.

Bonding procedures were carried out following a

standardized protocol. The enamel surface was conditioned

with 37% phosphoric acid for 20 s, rinsed, and air-dried. The

respective primer and adhesive were applied, and brackets

were positioned and cured under a constant light intensity.

After 24 h, the brackets were debonded using the digital force

gauge setup. The debonding force was recorded in Newtons

and converted to megapascals (MPa) using the formula:

Bond strength (MPa) = Debonding force (n)/Bracket surface

area (mm2)

This protocol ensured consistent and precise assessment of

the SBS for both adhesive systems under controlled clinical

conditions.

Mathur, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 3

aged >25 years. Most common group was 16–18 years

(33.3%). Majority of participants were below 18 years of

age (65.0%). Only 18 (30.0%) participants were aged 19–

25 years [Table 1].

Dominance of female gender was found in the present study.

Out of 60 participants enrolled in this study, 38 (63.3%) were

female, and rest of the participants were males [Table 2].

SBS of Group 1 in this present study ranged from 7.21 to

11.43 MPa, median SBS was 9.945, and mean SBS was 9.875

± 0.786 MPa whereas SBS of Group 2 ranged from 6.98 to

11.08 MPa, median SBS was 9.760 MPa, and mean SBS was

9.648 ± 0.811 MPa [Table 3].

Difference in SBS of the above to bonding agents was 0.226 ±

0.302 MPa. SBS of Group 2 was found to be 2.29% lower than

that of Group 1. This difference was found to be statistically

significant [Table 4].

SBS of Group 1 was maximum in age group ≤15 years (9.924

± 0.619 MPa), followed by in age group 19–29 years (9.875

± 0.999 MPa) and minimum in age group 16–18 years

(9.823±0.706 MPa). Difference in SBS of Group 1 in the

above age groups was not found to be significant.

Similarly, SBS of Group 2 was maximum in age group

≤15 years (9.708 ± 0.526 MPa), followed by age group 19–

29 years (9.655 ± 1.042 MPa) and minimum in age

RESULTS

Age of participants enrolled in this study ranged

between 10 and 29 years, and mean age of participants

was 18.30 ± 4.32 years. Only 3 (5.0%) participants were

60 Number of patients (Maxillary first premolars)

Tooth No. 14

N=60 N=60

Transbond XT-3M bonding composite Enlight Ormco bonding composite

Debonding Debonding

Debonding force

recorded

Debonding force

recorded

(Group 1) (Group 2)

Tooth No. 24

After 24 hrs

Figure 1: Categorization of the participants.

Figure 2: Digital force gauge setup.

Mathur, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 4

Figure 3: Modified de-bonding plier.

Table 1: Age profile of study population.

S. No. Age group Number of patients Percentage

1 ≤15 years 19 31.7

2 16–18 years 20 33.3

3 19–25 years 18 30.0

4 >25 years 3 5.0

Table 2: Gender‑wise distribution of study population.

S. No. Gender Number of patients Percentage

1 Female 38 63.3

2 Male 22 36.7

Table 3: Assessment of the shear bond strength of Transbond XT

and Enlight.

S. No. Variables Transbond XT Enlight

1 Number of participants 60 60

2 Shear bond strength (MPa)

3. Minimum 7.21 6.98

4. Maximum 11.43 11.08

5. Median 9.945 9.760

6. Mean 9.875 9.648

7. Standard deviation 0.786 0.811

Table 4: Difference in shear bond strength of Transbond XT and

Enlight‑Ormco (Paired “t” test).

S.

No.

Bonding material Mean SD Statistical

significance

(Paired “t” test)

1 Transbond XT 9.875 0.786 “t”=5.813; P<0.001

2 Enlight‑Ormco 9.648 0.811

3 Difference −0.226 0.302

% Difference 2.29%

SD: Standard deviation

group 16–18 years (9.584 ± 0.794 MPa). The difference in

SBS of Group 2 in the above age groups was not found to be

significant [Table 5].

On comparing the SBS of Group 1, males had higher SBS as

compared to females (9.916 ± 0.696 vs. 9.851 ± 0.842 MPa)

but this difference was not found to be statistically significant.

Similarly, SBS of Group 2 was higher for males (9.681 ± 0.712

MPa) as compared to females (9.629 ± 0.872 MPa), difference

being statistically non-significant [Table 6].

DISCUSSION

SBS remains a critical measure of bracket adhesion in

fixed orthodontic treatment, ensuring durability under

both orthodontic and masticatory forces. According to

Reynolds,[6] clinical ion bond strengths between 5.9 and

7.8 MPa are generally considered sufficient. Optimal

orthodontic adhesives must provide reliable bonding while

minimizing enamel damage during debonding. Hosein

et al.[7] emphasized the importance of reducing enamel loss,

while Greenlaw et al.[8] highlighted the benefits of adhesives

that allow easy bracket removal with minimal residue.

In this split-mouth in vivo study, both Transbond XT and

Enlight adhesives produced clinically acceptable SBS values.

Transbond XT demonstrated a marginally higher mean

SBS compared to Enlight, consistent with findings from

Arnold et al.,[9] D’Attilio et al.,[10] Tecco et al.,[11] and Rock

and Abdullah.[12] Although the intergroup difference was not

statistically significant, both adhesives performed reliably

under controlled conditions. Contrasting findings were

reported by Banerjee and Banerjee[13] who observed higher

SBS for Enlight versus Transbond XT – potentially due to

variations in curing protocols, bracket base composition, or

operator technique.

Subgroup analyses in the present study revealed no significant

SBS differences based on sex or age, aligning with conclusions

from Jakavičė et al.,[14] Li and Yang,[15] and Samantha et al.[16]

that demographic factors do not significantly influence

adhesive performance. Some of the recent studies provide

Mathur, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 5

Table 5: Comparison of shear bond strength of two bonding agents in different age groups.

S. No. Age group (years) n Transbond XT Enlight‑Ormco Comparison between the groups

(Paired “t” test)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean difference±SD “P”*

1 ≤15 years 19 9.924 0.619 9.708 0.526 0.216±0.312 0.007

2 16–18 years 20 9.823 0.706 9.584 0.794 0.239±0.315 0.003

3 19–29 years 21 9.875 0.999 9.655 1.042 0.224±0.295 0.002

(Intragroup different) ANOVA F=0.080; P=0.924 (NS) F=0.112; P=0.894 (NS)

ANOVA: Analysis of variance, SD: Standard deviation, NS: Non significant, * Statistically significant

Table 6: Comparison of shear bond strength of two bonding agents in female and male gender.

S. No. Gender n Transbond XT Enlight‑Ormco Comparison between bonding agents

(Paired “t” test)

Mean SD Mean SD Mean difference±SD “P”

1 Female 38 9.851 0.842 9.629 0.872 0.222±0.290 <0.001

2 Male 22 9.916 0.696 9.681 0.712 0.235±0.329 0.003

Student “t” test “t”=0.307; P=0.760 (NS) “t”=0.234; P=0.816 (NS)

SD: Standard deviation, NS: Non significant, P: Statistical significance

additional insight. Puthiyapuraiyil et al.[17] showed that

Enlight cured for 20 s achieved significantly higher SBS

(~22.45 ± 4.22 MPa) compared to Transbond XT (~18.78

± 0.75 MPa) under identical polymerization conditions,

underscoring the influence of curing time on performance.

Furthermore, a study by Hotchandani et al.[18] demonstrated

that incorporating 2 wt% titanium tetrafluoride into the

Transbond XT primer significantly improved SBS (≥19.5 MPa

immediately and ≥17.9 MPa after thermocycling), while

reducing enamel demineralization risk, highlighting the

benefit of innovative adhesive formulations.

Taken together, these findings suggest that while Transbond

XT consistently performs well under standardized

protocols, Enlight may outperform when using optimized

curing strategies. Clinicians should consider light-curing

parameters, handling characteristics, cost, and bracket

system compatibility when selecting between adhesives.

While this study provides valuable insights into the

comparative SBS of two commonly used orthodontic

adhesives, the evaluation was limited to maxillary first

premolars, which may not represent bonding characteristics

across different tooth types or clinical situations. In addition,

although the study was conducted in vivo, it simulated

only short-term conditions and did not account for longterm

intraoral challenges such as saliva contamination,

masticatory forces, thermal fluctuations, or pH variations.

Future studies are recommended to address these limitations

by incorporating long-term clinical follow-up to assess

bracket survival rates and enamel integrity post-debonding

under real oral conditions. Furthermore, comparative

analyses involving a broader range of bonding agents

including self-etching, bioactive, or nanocomposite adhesives

could enhance understanding of material performance across

varied clinical scenarios.

CONCLUSION

This split-mouth in vivo study compared the shear bond

strength (SBS) of Transbond XT and Enlight adhesives in

orthodontic bracket bonding. Both materials demonstrated

clinically acceptable SBS values, with Transbond XT showing

a marginally higher mean SBS (9.875 ± 0.786 MPa) compared

to Enlight (9.648 ± 0.811 MPa). Although the difference

was statistically significant (p < 0.001), its clinical impact is

minimal. No significant variation in SBS was observed across

age or gender subgroups. These findings indicate that both

adhesives are suitable for routine clinical use. Transbond XT

may offer a slight advantage in bond strength, but Enlight

remains a valid alternative, especially when other factors

like handling, cost, and curing preference are considered.

Limitations of this study include its short duration and

restriction to maxillary premolars. Future studies should

assess long-term performance, bracket survival, and enamel

preservation under varying oral conditions. Clinicians should

base adhesive selection on a combination of mechanical

properties, clinical workflow, and patient needs..

Ethical approval: The research/study was approved by the

Institutional Review Board at Saraswati Dental College and Hospital

Lucknow, number #ST60R18042023D, dated 09/05/2023.

Mathur, et al.: Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth in vivo study

Asian Journal of Oral Health and Allied Sciences • 2025 • 15(18) | 6

Declaration of patient consent: The authors certify that they have

obtained all appropriate patient consent.

Financial support and sponsorship: Nil.

Conflicts of interest: There are no conflicts of interest.

Use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for

manuscript preparation: The authors confirm that there was no

use of artificial intelligence (AI)-assisted technology for assisting

in the writing or editing of the manuscript and no images were

manipulated using AI.

REFERENCES

1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic

filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955;34:849-53.

2. Bowen RL. Use of epoxy resins in restorative materials. J Dent Res

1956;35:360-9.

3. Newman GV. The use of a self-curing plastic adhesive in orthodontics.

Am J Orthod 1965;51:901-12.

4. Rajagopal R, Padmanabhan S, Gnanamani J. A comparison of shear

bond strength and de bonding characteristics of conventional,

moisture-insensitive, and self-etching primers. Angle Orthod

2004;74:264-8.

5. Tavas MA, Watts DC. Bonding of orthodontic brackets by

transillumination of a light activated composite: An in vitro study. Br J

Orthod 1979;6:207-8.

6. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod

1979;2:171-8.

7. Hosein I, Sherriff M, Ireland AJ. Enamel loss during bonding, de

bonding, and cleanup with use of a self-etching primer. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:717-24.

8. Greenlaw R, Way DC, Galil KA. An in vitro evaluation of a visible

light-cured resin as an alternative to conventional resin bonding. Am J

Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989;96:214-20.

9. Arnold RW, Combe EC, Warford JH Jr. Bonding of stainless steel

brackets to enamel with a new self-etching primer. Am J Orthod

Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:274-6.

10. D’Attilio M, Traini T, Di Iorio D, Varvara G, Festa F, Tecco S. Shear

bond strength, bond failure, and scanning electron microscopy

analysis of a new flowable composite for orthodontic use. Angle

Orthod 2005;75:410-5.

11. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, De Luca V, D’Attilio M. A new onestep

dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: An in vitro bond

strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672-7.

12. Rock WP, Abdullah MS. Shear bond strengths produced by composite

and compomer light cured orthodontic adhesives. J Dent 1997;25:

243-9.

13. Banerjee S, Banerjee R. Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength

of five orthodontic adhesives polymerized using different lights. Indian

J Dent Res 2021;22:731-6.

14. Jakavičė R, Kubiliūtė K, Smailienė D. Bracket bond failures: Incidence

and association with different risk factors-a retrospective study. Int J

Environ Res Public Health 2023;20:4452.

15. Li Q, Yang K. Loss of attachments in patients during orthodontic

therapy with clear aligners: A prospective clinical study. Orthod

Craniofac Res 2024;27:244-50.

16. Samantha C, Sundari S, Chandrasekhar S, Sivamurty G, Dinesh S.

Comparative evaluation of two bis-GMA based orthodontic bonding

adhesives - a randomized clinical trial. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11:

ZC40-4.

17. Puthiyapurayil G, Antony V, Muhamed1 S, Gazanafer R,

Mohamed1 N, Prathapan P. Effect of photopolymerization time on

shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic adhesives: An

in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2024;16:57-62.

18. Hotchandani KD, Anamika A, Priya M, Singh JR, Pandey H,

Chaudhary V. Evaluation of the bond strength, durability, and enamel

demineralization potential of orthodontic adhesives on bracket

bonding. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2024;16:S3604-6.

How to cite this article: Mathur T, Chandra P, Tandon R, Singh K.

Comparison of the efficacy of different bonding materials: A split-mouth

in vivo study. Asian J Oral Health Allied Sci. 2025;15:18. doi: 10.25259/

AJOHAS_31_2025