SYSTEMATIC REVIEW

In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing:

A systematic review and meta-analysis
Katrina J. Finnema,a Mutlu Özcan,b Wendy J. Post,c Yijin Ren,d and Pieter U. Dijkstrae
Groningen, The Netherlands, and Zürich, Switzerland

Introduction: The aims of this study were to systematically review the available literature regarding in-vitro
orthodontic shear bond strength testing and to analyze the influence of test conditions on bond strength.
Methods: Our data sources were Embase and Medline. Relevant studies were selected based on predefined
criteria. Study test conditions that might influence in-vitro bond strength were independently assessed by 2
observers. Studies reporting a minimum number of test conditions were included for meta-analysis by
using a multilevel model with 3 levels, with author as the highest level, study as the second level, and
specimens in the study as the lowest level. The primary outcome measure was bond strength. Results: We
identified 121 relevant studies, of which 24 were included in the meta-analysis. Methodologic drawbacks of
the excluded studies were generally related to inadequate reporting of test conditions and specimen
storage. The meta-analysis demonstrated that 3 experimental conditions significantly affect in-vitro bond
strength testing. Although water storage decreased bond strength on average by 10.7 MPa, each second
of photopolymerization time and each millimeter per minute of greater crosshead speed increased bond
strength by 0.077 and 1.3 MPa, respectively. Conclusions: Many studies on in-vitro orthodontic bond
strength fail to report test conditions that could significantly affect their outcomes. (Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137:615-22)

O
rthodontic bonding of brackets to teeth is a stan-
dard procedure to align teeth with fixed appli-
ances. Orthodontic treatment with brackets
generally takes approximately 2 years. Bond failure of
brackets during this period retards treatment and is
costly in terms of time, material, and patient inconve-
nience. Bracket debonding at the end of the treatment
should not damage the enamel. Hypothetically, in-vivo
testing in controlled trials is the best way to test the
effectiveness of a bonding system and any detrimental
effects on the enamel. However, clinically, it is almost im-
a
Postgraduate student, Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center
Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
b
Professor, University of Zürich, Dental Materials Unit, Center for Dental and
Oral Medicine, Clinic for Fixed and Removable Prosthodontics and Dental Ma-
terials Science, Zürich, Switzerland.
c
Statistician, Department of Epidemiology, University Medical Center
Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
d
Professor and chair, Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center
Groningen, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
e
Professor, Center for Rehabilitation, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Sur-
gery, School for Health Research, University Medical Center Groningen, Uni-
versity of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands.
The authors report no commercial, proprietary, or financial interest in the prod-
ucts or companies described in this article.
Reprint requests to: Katrina J. Finnema, Department of Orthodontics, University
Medical Center Groningen, University of Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, PO Box
30.001, 9700 RB Groningen, The Netherlands; e-mail, k.j.finnema@dmo.
umcg.nl.
Submitted, July 2009; revised and accepted, December 2009.
0889-5406/$36.00
Copyright Ó 2010 by the American Association of Orthodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.12.021
possible to distinguish the adhesive potential of a specific
bonding system independent of many other variables
that can influence either the quality or the longevity of
bracket bonding to enamel.1 In addition, the methodo-
logic quality of in-vivo randomized controlled trials
(RCTs) evaluating debonding and bracket failure is gener-
ally poor.2 Consequently, it is difficult to draw conclusions
about the effectiveness of specific bonding systems and
their effects on the enamel from in-vivo studies.
In-vitro studies possibly allow for more standard-
ized procedures for testing a specific bonding system.
However, the various test conditions that are used ham-
per the comparison of their results.3,4 Test conditions
suggested to influence bond strength include enamel
origin (ie, bovine vs human), substrate storage (eg,
physiologic saline solution or water), and pretreatment
of the enamel surface (eg, grinding and means of
cleaning).5-7 In addition, bond strength testing might
also be influenced by the specific test mode used (eg,
tensile or shear testing).8 An explanation for the differ-
ent outcomes between in-vitro bond strength studies
might therefore be that bond strength is not being tested
but, rather, an unknown combination of mechanical
properties and factors related to the test surfaces. Lately,
more attention has been given to the various test condi-
tions and their effects on the results. Recent studies have
evaluated the influence of some of these factors on bond
strength, including force location,9 tooth type,10-12
crosshead speed variations,13,14 and loading mode.8
615
616 Finnema et al
At present, there is no overview on bracket bond
strength from which general conclusions can be drawn.
Because of the lack of standardization, the growing
number of in-vitro studies being published can only
be evaluated individually. The aims of this study were
to systematically review the literature regarding in-
vitro bond strength and failure mode of the most fre-
quently used clinical bonding systems and to analyze
by meta-regression the influence of test conditions on
the bond strength measured.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Relevant studies were identified in a literature
search and subsequently selected on the basis of inclu-
sion criteria. Studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria
were assessed for reporting test conditions that could in-
fluence the results of in-vitro bond strength testing. The
studies reporting a minimal number of test conditions
were included for meta-analysis.
To identify studies related to in-vitro bond strength,
a search was performed in the databases of Medline
(1967 to December 2007) and Embase (1950 to Decem-
ber 2007) (Table I). References of identified studies and
relevant review articles were searched for additional
studies missed in the initial search. English was the lan-
guage restriction.
Initially, the titles and abstracts of the studies iden-
tified in the literature search were prescreened (by
K.J.F.) for relevance to the topic of this study (in-vitro
orthodontic shear bond strength testing). The full text
of each possibly relevant study was retrieved and as-
sessed by 2 reviewers (M.Ö., K.J.F.) for inclusion and
detailed assessment of the experimental conditions.
The Figure outlines the algorithm of the study selection
procedure.
Studies regarding bond strength testing were se-
lected for detailed assessment of the experimental con-
ditions if they met the following criteria: in-vitro
investigation, with the shear bond strengths of metal
brackets evaluated and expressed in megapascals
(MPa), and the sound buccal enamel of human premo-
lars used. Case reports, abstracts, letters, and narrative
reviews were excluded.
A list of 27 items was used to assess the experimen-
tal conditions, each reflecting an experimental condition
that influences the results of in-vitro bond strength test-
ing (Table II).3,4 Before the assessment of the studies, 2
observers (M.Ö. and K.J.F.) discussed all 27
experimental conditions to reach consensus about
their content. They independently assessed whether
the experimental conditions were reported in the
study. After the assessment, the observers agreed on
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2010
Table I. Search strategy in Medline and Embase
Search Literature search strategy
1 Explode "orthodontic-brackets"/MeSH
all subheadings
2 Bracket*
3 Fixed applian*
4 #1 or #2 or #3
5 Explode "dental-bonding"/MeSH all subheadings
6 Bond*
7 #5 or #6
8 #4 and #7
9 Explode "composite-resins"/MeSH all subheadings
10 Explode "compomers"/MeSH all subheadings
11 Explode "glass-ionomer-cements"/MeSH
all subheadings
12 Composite resin
13 Glass ionomer
14 Compomer
15 #8 and (#9 or #12)
16 #8 and (#10 or #14)
17 #8 and (#11 or #13)
18 #8 and bond strength
19 Search Medline/Embase: #15 or #16 or #17 or #18
#, Search; MeSH, medical subjects heading (a thesaurus word); *, trun-
cation of a text word.
the reporting of the 27 experimental conditions of
each study in a consensus meeting.
Studies included in the meta-analysis
The 2 observers independently determined the most
relevant experimental conditions for in-vitro bond
strength studies based on the results from previous stud-
ies. In a consensus meeting, agreement was reached on
these required experimental conditions. Studies were
included in the meta-analysis if at least all of the fol-
lowing experimental conditions were reported: storage
solution of teeth,15 cleaning of enamel,16 bracket
type,17-19 etchant type,20 etching time,21 adhesive
type, photopolymerization device,22 total photopoly-
merization time,23 specimen storage time,24 crosshead
speed,9,14 force location on bracket,13 and blade design
of the jig of the universal testing machine.25
The 2 observers independently extracted the data.
Consensus was reached after discussion in case of dis-
agreement.
First, for each of the 27 experimental conditions, the
number and percentage of included studies describing
this specific item were calculated (Table II). Subse-
quently, for each study included in the meta-analysis,
the following data were presented: thymol storage
solution (yes/no), fluor-free cleaning (yes/no), mesh
brackets (yes/no), phosphoric acid etching (yes/no), etch-
ing time (\30 seconds/$30 seconds), photopolymeriza-
tion time (seconds), photopolymerized composite (yes/
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Finnema et al 617
Volume 137, Number 5

Potentially relevant studies Table II. Experimental conditions assessed in the 121
identified and screened for articles
retrieval (n = 918)
Number (%) of studies
adequately reporting
Studies excluded, with
experimental
reasons (n = 752) Experimental condition condition
- not relevant for topic
Studies retrieved for more
detailed evaluation (n = 166) 1. Substrate origin* 121 (100)
2. Type of teeth* 121 (100)
3. Storage time before bonding 38 (31)
Studies excluded, with
4. Storage temperature before bonding 38 (31)
reasons (n = 45)
5. Storage solution before bonding† 108 (89)
- did not meet with
Potentially appropriate studies inclusion criteria 6. Cleaning of specimens† 113 (93)
to be included in the 7. Bracket material* 121 (100)
meta-analysis (n = 121) 8. Type of bracket† 94 (78)
9. Type of etchant† 111 (92)
Studies excluded, with 10. Time of etching† 109 (90)
reasons (n = 93) 11. Adhesive type† 119 (98)
- did not meet threshold 12. Amount of force at bracket placement 18 (15)
Studies included in meta-
analysis (n = 28) 13. Light device type† 75 (62)
14. Total polymerization time† 84 (69)
Studies withdrawn, by
outcome, with reasons 15. Light directions 65 (54)
(n = 4) 16. Sample storage time† 109 (90)
Studies with usable - overlapping data 17. Sample storage solution 103 (85)
information, by outcome or missing data 18. Sample storage temperature 97 (80)
(n = 24) 19. Thermocycling 26 (22)
20. Testing machine 119 (98)
21. Shear testing as test method 121 (100)
Fig. Algorithm of study selection procedure. 22. Crosshead speed† 117 (97)
23. Force location on bracket† 83 (69)
24. Blade design† 73 (60)
25. ARI 93 (77)
no), halogen light (yes/no), water storage (yes/no), stor-
26. Magnification used in determining ARI 70 (58)
age time (hours), thermocycling (yes/no), crosshead 27. Bond strength in MPa* 121 (100)
speed (millimeters per minute), force location on the
tooth-bracket interface (yes/no), and shearing blade *Studies reporting experimental conditions numbers 1, 2, 7 and 27
were included in the systematic review. †Studies reporting experimen-
(yes/no). Of the latter data, the influence on the main out- tal conditions numbers 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 16, 22, 23 and 24,
come variable (bond strength in megapascals) was evalu- together with those conditions marked *, were selected for meta-
ated in the meta-analysis. Failure mode reported with the analysis.
adhesive remnant index (ARI) was also scored when
reported and is presented as the percentage of specimens with the author. In this way, the correlation within au-
with all adhesive left on the enamel.26 thors between studies was taken into account. Residual
variance was entered in the multilevel model by using
Statistical analysis the within-study variance published in each study.
Different models were compared by using the
Statistical analyses were performed by using the
change in deviance (–2 log likelihood), a likelihood ra-
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (version
tio test (chi-square distributed). In this way, it was also
16.0, SPSS, Chicago, Ill). The interobserver agreement
possible to test the statistical heterogeneity between
with respect to the reporting of experimental conditions
authors and between articles by making different as-
of the included studies before the consensus meeting
sumptions about (models for) the covariance structure.
was expressed as the Cohen kappa. For descriptive
Effects with P values smaller than 0.05 were considered
statistics, means (standard deviations or medians) and
significant.
interquartile ranges in skewed distributions are re-
ported. In MLwin (version 2.02, Centre for Multilevel
Modelling, Bristol, United Kingdom), a 3-level analysis RESULTS
(random-effects model) was performed. This is a meta- The searches of Medline and Embase yielded 918
regression analysis. The lowest level corresponded to publications. After the first assessment, 166 studies
the specimen level (specimens in studies), the middle were judged to be relevant for this systematic review.
level with the study, and the highest level corresponded We found no additional studies by checking the
618 Finnema et al
references of the included studies and relevant review
articles. After we used the specified criteria, 121 of
the 166 studies regarding bond strength testing were in-
cluded for detailed assessment of the experimental con-
ditions (Fig). Interobserver agreement (Cohen kappa)
for reporting the 27 experimental conditions of the in-
cluded studies was 0.86. Disagreements were generally
caused by differences in language interpretation and
were resolved in the consensus meeting.
On average, the 121 included studies reported
a mean of 20.4 (SD, 2.8) experimental conditions with
a minimum of 1227 and a maximum of 26.28,29 The
most poorly reported item was the experimental
condition of amount of force at bracket placement.
This was reported in 18 (15%) of the 121 studies. The
most relevant experimental conditions for in-vitro
bond strength were reported in the following percentage
of studies: adhesive type, 98%; crosshead speed, 97%;
cleaning of enamel, 93%; etchant type, 92%; etching
time, 90%; specimen storage time, 90%; storage solu-
tion of teeth before bonding, 89%; bracket type, 78%;
total polymerization time, 69%; force location on
bracket, 69%; photopolymerization device, 62%; and
blade design, 60% (Table II).
Studies included for meta-analysis
By using the threshold value, 28 studies were in-
cluded in the meta-analysis. In 3 of the 9 studies from
the same authors, overlapping study data were re-
ported.30-32 These duplicated data were not entered in
the meta-analysis. One other study was excluded from
the meta-analysis because the standard deviation of
the main outcome measure (bond strength in megapas-
cals) was not reported.33 As a result, 24 studies were in-
cluded in the meta-analysis (Appendix).28,34-56 From
these studies, data regarding experimental groups with
a photopolymerized adhesive and nonself-ligating
metal brackets were extracted for further analyses.
This yielded 65 experimental groups that tested bond
strength in specimen groups ranging from 5 to 40 pre-
molars (mean, 14.1; SD, 7.4) (Appendix). Extracted
teeth were stored in distilled water with thymol in 30 ex-
perimental groups. Fluor-free cleaning was explicitly
reported in 32 groups. In 58 groups, a metal bracket
with a mesh base was used. Phosphoric acid etching
was used in 47 groups; in 48 experimental groups, the
etching time was $30 seconds. The total polymeriza-
tion times in the 65 groups varied from 2 to 60 seconds
(mean, 25.3; SD, 14.8).
A photopolymerized composite was used in 59
groups, and a halogen polymerization device was used
to cure the adhesives in 48 groups. Water storage was re-
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2010
Table III. Multilevel meta-analysis with bond strength
(MPa) as the dependent variable
Lower Upper
Independent variable Beta (SE) 95% CI 95% CI
Water storage –10.648 (3.541) –17.730 –3.566
(no, 0; yes,1)
Polymerization time 0.077 (0.030) 0.017 0.137
(per second)
Crosshead speed 1.302 (0.599) 0.104 2.500
(mm/min)
Constant 20.014 (3.452) 13.110 26.918
ported in 57 groups; in 8 experimental groups, artificial
saliva was used for storing the test specimens.28 The
storage times of the specimens ranged from 0 to 672
hours (median, 24; interquartile range, 0-48). Thermo-
cycling was explicitly reported in 15 of the 65 groups.
The crosshead speeds when removing the bracket varied
from 0.1 to 5.0 mm per minute (median, 0.5; interquar-
tile range, 0.5-1.0). In 23 studies, the force location was
at the bracket-enamel interface. In 50 groups, a shearing
blade was used for debonding the brackets. In the re-
maining 15 groups, a wire loop was used for the same
purpose. Based on the diversity in reported test condi-
tions, we concluded that there was considerable clinical
heterogeneity in these studies. Bond strengths ranged
from 3.5 to 27.8 MPa (mean, 13.4; SD, 5.7). ARI scores
were reported in 57 experimental groups. Specimens
with all adhesive left on the enamel after bond strength
testing varied from 0% to 90%.
Meta-analysis
Table III summarizes the results of the meta-
analysis. Heterogeneity between authors and studies
was still significant after entering the predictor variables
(P \0.05). The results of bond strength testing were
negatively influenced when the teeth were stored in wa-
ter. Water storage on average decreased bond strength
by 10.7 MPa, assuming that the other predictors remain
constant. Analogously, each second of photopolymeri-
zation time increased the bond strength by 0.077 MPa;
when crosshead speed increased by 1 mm per minute,
bond strength increased by 1.3 MPa.
DISCUSSION
There was great diversity in the experimental condi-
tions of studies reporting bond strength testing in ortho-
dontics. The results from the meta-analysis in this
systematic review indicate that the experimental condi-
tions of water storage, photopolymerization time, and
crosshead speed significantly influenced the results of
in-vitro bond strength testing.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 137, Number 5
As previously shown in 2 other reviews evaluating
orthodontic bond strength studies, there is still great di-
versity in test protocols and quality of these studies.3,4
The observed heterogeneity between the studies in
this meta-analysis was clinically and statistically large.
Not one study described all 27 experimental conditions.
This finding might relate to the fact that some experi-
mental conditions—eg, the ARI and thermocycling—
were not used in all studies. However, when evaluating
the 121 studies for the most relevant experimental con-
ditions, only 28 fulfilled the threshold value. This find-
ing indicates that most of these in-vitro studies did not
properly report important confounding factors that af-
fect bond strength outcomes. When we finally included
24 of these 28 studies in a meta-analysis, water storage
of the bonded specimens, photopolymerization time,
and crosshead speed were shown to be the variables
that primarily affected the bond strength outcomes.
Water storage decreased bond strength on average
by 10.7 MPa. Although this was the most pronounced
effect of an experimental condition on in-vitro bond
strength outcomes, this finding was mainly influenced
by 1 relatively large study sample in which artificial sa-
liva was used as a storage medium for specimens.28
Most in-vitro bond strength studies used distilled water
for storing the specimens, but 11% of the studies did not
report the storage medium. It was previously reported
that specimen storage in artificial saliva reduces bond
strength similarly to the effect of water degradation.57
Although our study indicates that distilled water has
a different effect on bond strength than artificial saliva,
future research on the effects of different storage media
on bond strength is needed.
The second experimental condition that we found to
significantly affect in-vitro bond strength was photopo-
lymerization time. Each additional second of photopoly-
merization increased bond strength by 0.077 MPa. It was
previously suggested that photopolymerization time has
a greater influence on in-vitro bond strength than the
type of photopolymerization device.23,58 The studies in
this meta-analysis showed considerable variations in
photopolymerization time: from 2 to 50 seconds. More-
over, 31% of the included studies did not even report
polymerization time (Appendix). Most remaining stud-
ies used 40 seconds for polymerizing the adhesive; this
corresponds to the routine clinical standard. The fact
that the majority of these studies used a halogen device
for polymerizing the adhesive most likely explains
why this polymerization time was used. The results
from our meta-analysis, however, suggest that a longer
polymerization time yields higher bond strengths,
although the most optimal time for polymerizing the
adhesive cannot be deduced from our results.
Finnema et al 619
The third experimental condition shown to signifi-
cantly affect outcomes of bond strength testing was
crosshead speed. An increase in crosshead speed of 1
mm per minute yielded an increase in average bond
strength of 1.3 MPa. The opposite effect was demon-
strated in 2 previous studies in which increases in cross-
head speed from 0.5 to 5.0 mm per minute and from 1 to
200 mm per minute, respectively, were associated with
significant decreases of in-vitro bond strength.14,59 This
phenomenon was suggested to relate to the induction of
a stiff body response and the elimination of the
viscoelastic properties of the adhesive.59 In another
study, no effect was observed on bond strength with
crosshead speed variations between 0.1 and 5 mm per
minute.9 In the studies included in this meta-analysis,
crosshead speeds ranged from 0.1 to 5 mm per minute
with most using a speed of 0.5 mm per minute
(Appendix). We have no obvious explanation for the
discrepancy of our results with those of previous stud-
ies; unknown confounders might be responsible.
Bond strength values reported in the 24 studies in
this meta-analysis ranged from 3.5 to 27.8 MPa. Clini-
cal implications of in-vitro bond strength values are
generally based on the recommendation in a review ar-
ticle from 197560; a ‘‘clinically acceptable’’ value was
defined as an in-vitro bond strength of 6 to 8 MPa. Ac-
cording to this criterion, 53 of the 65 experimental
groups from our meta-analysis should be considered
to have clinically acceptable bond strength values. Be-
cause it has never actually been tested whether 6 to 8
MPa is a sufficient in-vitro bond strength for clinical
use, the use of this reference value has been criticized
before.4,61 Since the publication of this reference
value, various materials have been used, and the
effects of various test conditions (eg, pH and
temperature variations) have been implicated in the
aging of composite resins.61 This implies that interpre-
tation of bond strength data should be limited to the rel-
ative effectiveness of the adhesives used in a study.
Extrapolation of absolute values and comparing them
with a supposedly ‘‘clinically acceptable’’ reference
value should be avoided.62
Since shear bond strength testing is the most com-
monly used method for debonding brackets, only stud-
ies that used this method were included in our review.
With respect to shear bond strength testing, there are
also some variations in blade design. Most studies
used a shearing blade for debonding the brackets,
whereas in some studies a wire loop was used.40-43,45-47
Debonding brackets with a wire loop is not a true
form of shear bond strength testing, since it also
incorporates a component of tensile stress. Although
blade design could not be identified as an
620 Finnema et al
experimental condition that significantly affected in-
vitro bond strength results in this meta-analysis, differ-
ent shearing blades could have an effect. This should be
substantiated by additional studies.
Theoretically, in-vitro studies determine the true
strength of a given bonding system to the enamel sub-
strate. Unfortunately, in-vitro studies have not been suc-
cessful in predicting in-vivo effectiveness.63,64 An
accurate simulation of the clinical situation seems
necessary to obtain clinically relevant results from in-
vitro experiments.4 However, because of the many con-
ditions involved in the in-vivo situation, an accurate
simulation is at present an unrealistic goal. Although
in-vitro bond strength testing is valuable for initial
screening and selection of materials, it cannot be re-
garded as a substitute for in-vivo testing. Orthodontic
materials that perform well in in-vitro experiments
should always be tested with in-vivo RCTs.
Although we systematically reviewed the current
literature on in-vitro shear bond strength testing, our
study has some possible limitations. Selection bias
could have resulted in inappropriate inclusion or exclu-
sion of studies based on factors other than the inclusion
criteria. This chance was minimized by having 2 ob-
servers independently assess the articles. Another short-
coming might have been our language restriction.
Moreover, only 2 databases were searched. Some rele-
vant studies might have been missed by doing so. How-
ever, we believe that our conclusion of poor descriptions
of test conditions in most in-vitro bond strength studies
would not be altered by studies that were possibly
missed because of language and database restrictions.
This is substantiated, since 93 (77%) of the 121 poten-
tially appropriate studies were excluded from the
meta-analysis because test conditions were not ade-
quately reported. Finally, this is a systematic review
concerning in-vitro observational studies. Conclusions
in systematic reviews and meta-analyses are preferably
based on results from RCTs. No RCTs were available
for the topic of this systematic review and meta-
analysis. Selection bias, information bias, and unknown
confounders threatened the validity of each study that
we evaluated. In future in-vitro studies, bracket debond-
ing should be evaluated more carefully by considering
the items studied in this review. With this approach,
the most dominant factor affecting bracket adhesion in
vitro might also be identified and correlated with the
clinical situation.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review and meta-analysis, a sum-
mary of factors is given that can affect the in-vitro bond
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2010
strength of orthodontic brackets. Experimental condi-
tions that significantly influence in-vitro bond strength
are water storage of the bonded specimens, photopoly-
merization time, and crosshead speed. Based on the re-
sults from this systematic review, we concluded that
many studies did not properly report test conditions
that could have significantly affected the outcomes. Be-
cause of developments in adhesive dentistry and the in-
creasing numbers of bond strength studies, uniform
guidelines for standardization of the experimental con-
ditions of in-vitro bond strength research is clearly
indicated.
REFERENCES
1. Leloup G, D’Hoore W, Bouter D, Degrange M, Vreven J. Meta-
analytical review of factors involved in dentin adherence. J Dent
Res 2000;80:1605-14.
2. Mandall NA, Millett DT, Mattick CR, Hickman J,
Worthington HV, Macfarlane TV. Orthodontic adhesives: a sys-
tematic review. J Orthod 2002;29:205-10.
3. Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength test-
ing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994;21:33-3.
4. Eliades T, Brantley WA. The inappropriateness of conventional
orthodontic bond strength assessment protocols. Eur J Orthod
2000;22:13-23.
5. Oesterle LJ, Shellhart WC, Belanger GK. The use of bovine
enamel in bonding studies. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
1998;114:514-9.
6. Mühleman HR. Storage medium and enamel hardness. Helvetica
Odontologica Acta 1964;8:112-7.
7. Eliades T, Viazis AD, Eliades G. Bonding of ceramic brackets to
enamel: morphologic and structural considerations. Am J Orthod
Dentofacial Orthop 1991;99:369-75.
8. Katona TR, Long RW. Effect of loading mode on bond strength of
orthodontic brackets bonded with 2 systems. Am J Orthod Dento-
facial Orthop 2006;129:60-4.
9. Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B. Influence of crosshead speed in ortho-
dontic bond strength testing. Dent Mater 2005;21:139-44.
10. Oztürk B, Malkoç S, Koyutürk AE, Catalbas B, Ozer F. Influence
of different tooth types on the bond strength of two orthodontic
adhesive systems. Eur J Orthod 2008;30:407-12.
11. Hobson RS, McCabe JF, Hogg SD. Bond strength to surface
enamel for different tooth types. Dent Mater 2001;17:184-9.
12. Linklater RA, Gordon PH. An ex vivo study to investigate bond
strengths of different tooth types. J Orthod 2001;28:59-65.
13. Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B. Influence of force location in orthodon-
tic shear bond strength testing. Dent Mater 2005;21:391-6.
14. Bishara SE, Soliman M, Laffoon J, Warren JJ. Effect of changing
a test parameter on the shear bond strength of orthodontic
brackets. Angle Orthod 2005;75:832-5.
15. Titley K, Caldwell R, Kulkarni G. Factors that affect the shear
bond strength of multiple component and single bottle adhesives
to dentin. Am J Dent 2003;16:120-4.
16. Lindauer SJ, Browning H, Shroff B, Marshall F, Anderson RH,
Moon PC. Effect of pumice prophylaxis on the bond strength of
orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;
111:599-605.
17. Bishara SE, Soliman MM, Oonsombat C, Laffoon JF, Ajlouni R.
The effect of variation in mesh-base design on the shear bond
strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 2004;74:400-4.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 137, Number 5
18. Sharma-Sayal SK, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV, Titley KC. The in-
fluence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;124:74-82.
19. Knox J, Hubsch P, Jones ML, Middleton J. The influence of
bracket base design on the strength of the bracket-cement inter-
face. J Orthod 2000;27:249-54.
20. De Munck J, Van Landuyt K, Peumans M, Poitevin A,
Lambrechts P, Braem M, et al. A critical review of the durability
of adhesion to tooth tissue: methods and results. J Dent Res 2005;
84:118-32.
21. Gardner A, Hobson R. Variations in acid-etch patterns with differ-
ent acids and etch times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2001;
120:64-7.
22. Niepraschk M, Rahiotis C, Bradley TG, Eliades T, Eliades G. Ef-
fect of various curing lights on the degree of cure of orthodontic
adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:382-4.
23. Eliades T. Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 1.
Current status and projected future developments in bonding and
adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:445-51.
24. Yamamoto A, Yoshida T, Tsubota K, Takamizawa T,
Kurokawa H, Miyazaki M. Orthodontic bracket bonding: enamel
bond strength vs time. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;130:
435. e1-6.
25. Mojtahedzadeh F, Akhoundi MS, Noroozi H. Comparison of wire
loop and shear blade as the 2 most common methods for testing
orthodontic shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop
2006;130:385-7.
26. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth condition-
ing as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Or-
thod 1984;85:333-40.
27. Sehgal V, Shetty VS, Mogra S, Bhat G, Eipe M, Jacob S, et al.
Evaluation of antimicrobial and physical properties of orthodontic
composite resin modified by addition of antimicrobial agents—an
in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;131:525-9.
28. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, Lee YK, Kim CW. Effects of
salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of
brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:287-95.
29. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, de Luca V, D’Attilio M. A
new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an
in-vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672-7.
30. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortız AJ, Canteras M. Bond
strength of brackets bonded with an adhesion promoter. Br Dent
J 2004;196:482-5.
31. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortız AJ, Canteras M. Effects
of 3 adhesion promoters on the shear bond strength of orthodontic
brackets: an in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;
129:390-5.
32. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M. Self-etching primer and a non-
rinse conditioner versus phosphoric acid: alternative methods for
bonding brackets. Eur J Orthod 2006;28:173-8.
33. Aljubouri YD, Millett DT, Gilmour WH. Laboratory evaluation of
a self-etching primer for orthodontic bonding. Eur J Orthod 2003;
25:411-5.
34. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI. Effect of self-etching
primers on bond strength—are they reliable? Angle Orthod
2003;73:64-70.
35. Kim MJ, Lim BS, Chang WG, Lee YK, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Phos-
phoric acid incorporated with acidulated phosphate fluoride gel
etchant effects on bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2005;75:
678-84.
36. Klocke A, Korbmacher HM, Huck LG, Kahl-Nieke B. Plasma arc
curing lights for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2002;122:643-8.
Finnema et al 621
37. Martin S, Garcia-Godoy F. Shear bond strength of orthodontic
brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. Am J Or-
thod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:615-20.
38. McCourt JW, Cooley RL, Barnwell S. Bond strength of light-cure
fluoride-releasing base-liners as orthodontic bracket adhesives.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:47-52.
39. Northrup RG, Berzins DW, Bradley TG, Schuckit W. Shear bond
strength comparison between two orthodontic adhesives and
self-ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2007;77:
701-6.
40. Romano FL, Tavares SW, Nouer DF, Consani S, Borges de Araújo
Magnani MB. Shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic
brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer. An-
gle Orthod 2005;75:849-53.
41. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Sezen S, Aydemir B. New protective polish ef-
fects on shear bond strength of brackets. Angle Orthod 2006;76:
306-9.
42. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Sezen S, Aydemir B. Light curing the primer—
beneficial when working in problem areas? Angle Orthod 2006;
76:310-3.
43. Schaneveldt S, Foley TF. Bond strength comparison of moisture-
insensitive primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:
267-73.
44. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Hotta M,
Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of a new fluoride-releasing or-
thodontic adhesive. Dent Mater J 2007;26:45-51.
45. Signorelli MD, Kao E, Ngan PW, Gladwin MA. Comparison of
bond strength between orthodontic brackets bonded with halogen
and plasma arc curing lights: an in-vitro and in-vivo study. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:277-82.
46. Sunna S, Rock WP. An ex vivo investigation into the bond
strength of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems. Br J Or-
thod 1999;26:47-50.
47. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, de Luca V, D’Attilio M. A
new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an
in-vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672-7.
48. Usxümez S, Büyükyilmaz T, Karaman AI. Effect of light-emitting
diode on bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod
2004;74:259-63.
49. Uysal T, Basciftci FA, Us xümez S, Sari Z, Buyukerkmen A. Can
previously bleached teeth be bonded safely? Am J Orthod Dento-
facial Orthop 2003;123:628-32.
50. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortiz AJ, Canteras M. Adhe-
sion promoters: effects on the bond strength of brackets. Am
J Dent 2005;18:323-6.
51. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortız AJ, Canteras M. Shear
bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with self-etching
primers. Am J Dent 2005;18:256-60.
52. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M. Influence of a nonrinse condi-
tioner on the bond strength of brackets bonded with a resin adhe-
sive system. Angle Orthod 2005;75:400-5.
53. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortiz AJ, Canteras M. A
comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin cement and
two orthodontic resin adhesive systems. Angle Orthod 2005;
75:109-13.
54. Vicente A, Navarro R, Mena A, Bravo LA. Effect of surface treat-
ments on the bond strength of brackets bonded with a compomer.
Am J Dent 2006;19:271-4.
55. Vicente A, Bravo LA. Direct bonding with precoated brackets and
self-etching primers. Am J Dent 2006;19:241-4.
56. Wendl B, Droschl H. A comparative in-vitro study of the strength
of directly bonded brackets using different curing techniques. Eur
J Orthod 2004;26:535-44.
622 Finnema et al
57. Kitasako Y, Burrow MF, Nikaido T, Tagami J. The influence of
storage solution on dentin bond durability of resin cement. Dent
Mater 2000;16:1-6.
58. Ilie N, Hickel R. Correlation between ceramics translucency and
polymerization efficiency through ceramics. Dent Mater 2008;24:
908-14.
59. Eliades T, Katsavrias E, Zinelis S, Eliades G. Effect of loading
rate on bond strength. J Orofac Orthop 2004;65:336-42.
60. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod
1975;2:171-8.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2010
61. Eliades T. Comparing bond strengths. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2002;122(6):13-15A.
62. Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials:
the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Den-
tofacial Orthop 2005;127:403-12.
63. Murray SD, Hobson RS. Comparison of in-vivo and in-vitro
shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:2-9.
64. Sunna S, Rock WP. Clinical performance of orthodontic brackets
and adhesive systems: a randomized clinical trial. Br J Orthod
1998;25:283-7.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume 137, Number 5
APPENDIX REFERENCES
1. Buyukyilmaz T, Usumez S, Karaman AI. Effect of self-etching
primers on bond strength—are they reliable? Angle Orthod
2003;73:64-70.
2. Chang WG, Lim BS, Yoon TH, Lee YK, Kim CW. Effects of
salicylic-lactic acid conditioner on the shear bond strength of
brackets and enamel surfaces. J Oral Rehabil 2005;32:287-95.
3. Kim MJ, Lim BS, Chang WG, Lee YK, Rhee SH, Yang HC. Phos-
phoric acid incorporated with acidulated phosphate fluoride gel
etchant effects on bracket bonding. Angle Orthod 2005;75:678-84.
4. Klocke A, Korbmacher HM, Huck LG, Kahl-Nieke B. Plasma arc
curing lights for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial
Orthop 2002;122:643-8.
5. Martin S, Garcia-Godoy F. Shear bond strength of orthodontic
brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994;106:615-20.
6. McCourt JW, Cooley RL, Barnwell S. Bond strength of light-cure
fluoride-releasing base-liners as orthodontic bracket adhesives.
Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1991;100:47-52.
7. Northrup RG, Berzins DW, Bradley TG, Schuckit W. Shear bond
strength comparison between two orthodontic adhesives and self-
ligating and conventional brackets. Angle Orthod 2007;77:701-6.
8. Romano FL, Tavares SW, Nouer DF, Consani S, Borges de Araújo
Magnani MB. Shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic
brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer.
Angle Orthod 2005;75:849-53.
9. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Sezen S, Aydemir B. New protective polish effects
on shear bond strength of brackets. Angle Orthod 2006;76:306-9.
10. Sayinsu K, Isik F, Sezen S, Aydemir B. Light curing the primer–
beneficial when working in problem areas? Angle Orthod 2006;
76:310-3.
11. Schaneveldt S, Foley TF. Bond strength comparison of moisture-
insensitive primers. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:
267-73.
12. Scougall Vilchis RJ, Yamamoto S, Kitai N, Hotta M,
Yamamoto K. Shear bond strength of a new fluoride-releasing
orthodontic adhesive. Dent Mater J 2007;26:45-51.
Finnema et al 622.e1
13. Signorelli MD, Kao E, Ngan PW, Gladwin MA. Comparison of
bond strength between orthodontic brackets bonded with halogen
and plasma arc curing lights: an in-vitro and in-vivo study. Am
J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:277-82.
14. Sunna S, Rock WP. An ex vivo investigation into the bond
strength of orthodontic brackets and adhesive systems. Br J Orthod
1999;26:47-50.
15. Tecco S, Traini T, Caputi S, Festa F, de Luca V, D’Attilio M. A
new one-step dental flowable composite for orthodontic use: an
in-vitro bond strength study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:672-7.
16. Usxümez S, Büyükyilmaz T, Karaman AI. Effect of light-emitting
diode on bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod
2004;74:259-63.
17. Uysal T, Basciftci FA, Us xümez S, Sari Z, Buyukerkmen A. Can
previously bleached teeth be bonded safely? Am J Orthod Dento-
facial Orthop 2003;123:628-32.
18. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortiz AJ, Canteras M.
Adhesion promoters: effects on the bond strength of brackets.
Am J Dent 2005;18:323-6.
19. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortız AJ, Canteras M. Shear
bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with self-etching
primers. Am J Dent 2005;18:256-60.
20. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M. Influence of a nonrinse condi-
tioner on the bond strength of brackets bonded with a resin
adhesive system. Angle Orthod 2005;75:400-5.
21. Vicente A, Bravo LA, Romero M, Ortiz AJ, Canteras M.
A comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin cement
and two orthodontic resin adhesive systems. Angle Orthod
2005;75:109-13.
22. Vicente A, Navarro R, Mena A, Bravo LA. Effect of surface treat-
ments on the bond strength of brackets bonded with a compomer.
Am J Dent 2006;19:271-4.
23. Vicente A, Bravo LA. Direct bonding with precoated brackets and
self-etching primers. Am J Dent 2006;19:241-4.
24. Wendl B, Droschl H. A comparative in-vitro study of the strength
of directly bonded brackets using different curing techniques.
Eur J Orthod 2004;26:535-44.
622.e2 Finnema et al American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
May 2010

Appendix table. Overview of the experimental conditions and outcomes of the studies in the meta-analysis
Reference Number Phosphoric Etch
number of per Thymol Fluor-free Mesh acid time Polymerization Light-cured
study group storage cleaning base etch $30 s time (s) composite

1 20 N N Y Y Y 40 Y
1 20 N N Y N N 40 Y
1 20 N N Y N N 40 Y
1 20 N N Y N Y 40 Y
2 9 Y Y Y Y N 30 Y
2 9 Y Y Y Y N 4 Y
2 9 Y Y Y Y N 50 Y
2 9 Y Y Y Y N 4 Y
2 9 Y Y Y N Y 30 Y
2 9 Y Y Y N Y 4 Y
2 9 Y Y Y N Y 50 Y
2 9 Y Y Y N Y 4 Y
3 10 Y Y Y Y Y 40 Y
3 10 Y Y Y Y Y 40 Y
3 10 Y Y Y Y Y 40 Y
4 15 N N Y Y Y 6 Y
4 15 N N Y Y Y 2 Y
4 15 N N Y Y Y 6 Y
4 15 N N Y Y Y 2 Y
4 15 N N Y Y Y 20 Y
5 10 N N Y Y N 60 Y
6 10 N N Y Y Y 20 Y
6 10 N N Y Y Y 20 Y
6 10 N N Y Y Y 20 N
6 10 N N Y Y Y 20 N
7 20 N N Y Y N 20 Y
8 10 Y Y N Y Y 40 Y
8 10 Y Y N N N 40 Y
8 10 Y Y N N N 40 Y
9 20 N N N Y Y 40 Y
10 15 N N N Y Y 40 Y
10 15 N N N Y Y 40 Y
11 40 Y Y Y Y Y 40 Y
12 35 Y Y Y Y Y 30 Y
12 35 Y Y Y N Y 30 Y
13 15 Y N Y Y Y 20 Y
13 15 Y N Y Y Y 20 Y
13 15 Y N Y Y Y 6 Y
13 15 Y N Y Y Y 6 Y
14 10 N N Y Y Y 20 Y
14 10 N N N Y Y 20 Y
14 10 N N Y Y Y 20 Y
15 15 Y Y Y Y Y 40 Y
16 20 N Y Y Y Y 40 Y
16 20 N Y Y Y Y 10 Y
16 20 N Y Y Y Y 20 Y
16 20 N Y Y Y Y 40 Y
17 20 N Y Y Y Y 20 Y
18 25 Y N Y Y Y 20 Y
19 25 Y N Y N N 20 Y
20 15 Y N Y N N 20 Y
21 25 Y N Y Y Y 30 Y
22 15 Y N Y Y Y 40 Y
22 15 Y N Y N N 40 Y
23 15 Y N Y Y Y 20 Y
23 15 Y N Y N N 20 Y
24 5 N Y Y Y Y 40 Y
24 5 N Y Y Y Y 10 Y
24 5 N Y Y Y Y 2 Y
24 5 N Y Y Y Y 3 Y
24 5 N Y Y Y Y 24 Y
24 5 N Y Y N N 40 N
24 5 N Y Y N N 10 N
24 5 N Y Y N N 6 N
24 5 N Y Y N N 24 N

*On bracket-adhesive interface; †all adhesive remained on enamel; Y, yes; N, no; ?, only mean ARI value given; NR, not reported; SEM, standard
error of the mean.
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics Finnema et al 622.e3
Volume 137, Number 5

Appendix table. (Continued)

Halogen Water Storage Crosshead speed Force Shear ARI† Bond strength
light storage time (h) Thermocycling (mm/min) location* blade (%) (MPa) SEM

Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 85 13.10 0.69

Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 75 16.00 1.01
Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 0 11.50 0.74
Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 0 9.90 0.89
Y N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 11 24.40 1.84
N N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 11 18.21 1.34
Y N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 11 27.76 1.03
N N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 11 25.09 1.24
Y N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 0 23.44 1.94
N N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 0 21.23 1.37
Y N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 0 22.89 1.19
N N 72 Y 0.5 Y Y 0 16.24 1.05
Y Y 1 N 1.0 Y Y 22 14.05 1.03
Y Y 24 N 1.0 Y Y 30 20.94 0.79
Y Y 0 Y 1.0 Y Y 10 18.03 0.84
N Y 48 N 1.0 N Y 0 12.09 0.89
N Y 48 N 1.0 N Y 0 7.66 0.41
Y Y 48 N 1.0 N Y 7 11.24 0.92
Y Y 48 N 1.0 N Y 0 6.41 0.57
Y Y 48 N 1.0 N Y 7 11.85 1.13
Y Y 24 Y 0.5 Y Y NR 19.60 3.04
Y Y 24 N 0.5 N Y NR 11.35 0.93
Y Y 672 N 0.5 N Y NR 9.19 1.20
Y Y 24 N 0.5 N Y NR 11.58 0.95
Y Y 672 N 0.5 N Y NR 5.39 0.75
N Y 40 N 0.1 N Y 90 15.20 1.01
Y Y 24 N 0.5 N N 80 6.43 0.59
Y Y 24 N 0.5 N N 50 4.61 0.28
Y Y 24 N 0.5 N N 0 4.74 0.4
Y Y 72 N 3.0 N N NR 13.03 0.54
Y Y 72 N 3.0 N N NR 14.45 0.61
Y Y 72 N 3.0 N N NR 14.17 0.54
Y Y 72 Y 2.0 N N 17.5 14.82 0.41
Y Y 360 Y 5.0 Y Y 29 18.10 0.93
Y Y 360 Y 5.0 Y Y 29 12.70 0.56
Y Y 0.5 N 1.0 N N ? 13.6 0.98
Y Y 1 Y 1.0 N N ? 16.1 0.93
N Y 0.5 N 1.0 N N ? 14.2 1.19
N Y 1 Y 1.0 N N ? 18.2 1.19
Y Y 24 N 5.0 N N 0 21.56 1.05
Y Y 24 N 5.0 N N 0 22.32 0.51
Y Y 24 N 5.0 N N 0 17.82 0.5
Y Y 72 N 1.0 N N 65 23.23 1.34
Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 85 13.10 0.69
N Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 50 9.10 0.69
N Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 55 13.90 1.07
N Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 55 12.70 1.16
Y Y 24 N 0.5 Y Y 80 12.90 0.76
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 12.27 1.00
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 12.20 0.85
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 10.45 1.06
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 14.93 0.95
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 7.19 0.73
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 8.34 0.51
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 14.13 2.27
Y Y 24 N 1.0 N Y 0 14.28 2.74
Y Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 9.50 0.72
Y Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 5.80 0.58
N Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 3.50 0.49
N Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 5.20 0.31
N Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 5.80 0.72
Y Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 8.20 0.80
Y Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 7.50 0.63
N Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 9.40 0.85
N Y 1 N 0.5 N Y 0 8.00 0.67