Clinical bracket failure rates between different bonding techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Experimental Bracket Design Performance on Bonding and Polymerization of Orthodontic Composite

Objective

To evaluate the enamel bonding ability and orthodontic adhesive resin degree of conversion using the experimental bracket design. Material and Methods. Thirteen bovine teeth were used in the study. The experimental bracket was modified with a translucent region in the center of its body. After enamel etching, Orthocem orthodontic adhesive (FGM, Joinville, Brazil) was applied on the bracket base for bonding. The groups were divided as follows (n = 10 per group): (1) control (CB) with standard brackets and (2) spot bracket (SB) with experimental brackets featuring a 0.8 mm translucent region at the center using carbide bur. Shear bond strength (SBS) was evaluated after 24 hours in a universal testing machine and adhesive remnant index (ARI). The degree of conversion (DC) was analyzed using Raman spectroscopy (n = 3 per group). Data were then analyzed using Student's t-test and Mann-Whitney statistical methods.

Results

The SB group exhibited a higher mean SBS (10.33 MPa) compared to the CB Group (8.77 MPa). However, there was no statistical difference between the groups (p = 0.376). Both SB and CB groups had a mean ARI score of 1. Raman analysis revealed a higher degree of conversion in the SB group (49.3%) compared to the CB group (25.9%).

Conclusions

The experimental support showed a higher degree of adhesive conversion, although there was no significant increase in bond strength.

Metallic vs Ceramic Bracket Failures After 12 Months of Treatment: A Prospective Clinical Trial

INTRODUCTION

Orthodontic treatment with fixed vestibular appliances is still widely used worldwide. When choosing the aesthetic alternative of ceramic brackets, the possibility of failure and cracking of braces should be considered. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare the failure rates of ceramic and metal brackets in a 12-month clinical study.

METHODS

Eighty patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with vestibular appliances were enrolled and divided into 2 equal groups: MET for metal brackets and CER for ceramic brackets. After bonding, bracket failures were recorded for 12 months, along with the archwire placed at the time of failure. Angle's dental class, skeletal class, Wits appraisal, Little's irregularity index, overjet, overbite, age, and gender of the patients were recorded from pretreatment cephalometric tracings and study casts. The data were statistically analysed (P < .05).

RESULTS

Significantly higher failure rates were found for ceramic brackets in the overall analysis, in the mandibular arch, and in the posterior region. Regression analysis revealed a significant influence of round nickel-titanium archwires on higher failure rates, whilst a significant influence of rectangular archwires was found on lower failure rates.

CONCLUSIONS

Ceramic brackets showed higher failure rates. Patients should be aware that orthodontic treatment with ceramic brackets may involve delays and inconvenience due to the higher failure rate compared to metal brackets.

Does the use of universal adhesive systems improve the durability of the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to enamel?

Background

Universal adhesive systems used for restorative clinical procedures are like orthodontics and may be a viable option. This study evaluated the effectiveness of universal adhesive systems in enhancing the durability of the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) of orthodontic brackets to enamel.

Material and Methods

100 bovine incisors were divided into five groups (n=20), according to the applied adhesive systems: Primer Transbond XT; Ambar; Ambar Universal; Single Bond Universal; Adper Single Bond 2. Bracket from each tooth were submitted to SBS test after 24 hours, and 12 months later. The amount of remaining adhesive was evaluated through ARI.

Results

After 24 hours, there was no difference in BS between the control and the other groups (p>0.05). However, there were difference between TOTALETCHING1 group and the Ambar Universal (p=0.015) and Single Bond Universal groups (p=0.011). After 12 months, Primer Transbond XT, Ambar, Ambar Universal and Adper Single Bond 2 showed no differences in the SBS (p>0.05). Nonetheless, Single Bond Universal presented superior result when compared to Primer Transbond XT (p=0.046) and Ambar (p=0.011) groups. The SBS of all groups reduced significantly after 12 months (p<0.05). There was no difference between ARI scores in each individually assessed group (p>0.05), for both periods. Following 24 hours, a difference was observed between the groups (p=0.043), fact that didn't occur after 12 months (p=0.109).

Conclusions

Adhesive systems, such as Ambar Universal and Single Bond Universal are efficient in bonding orthodontic brackets to enamel when associated with Transbond XT adhesive paste. Key words:Bond strength; Primer Transbond XT, orthodontic brackets, adhesive systems.

Shear bond strength of a RMGIC for orthodontic bracket bonding to enamel

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of a restorative resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) for orthodontic bracket bonding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

One hundred twenty-one human teeth were randomly divided into 11 groups (n = 11) according to the surface treatment applied (H3PO4 ± Transbond Plus (TSEP) or Scotchbond Universal (SU)), and the adhesive used (Riva LC HV (RIVA), Fuji Ortho (FUJI), and Transbond XT (TXT)). For each sample, a metal button was bonded. SBS tests were performed at 1 week and debonded specimens were observed for failure modes determination. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc test was used to compare SBS differences and Fisher's exact test to analyze the failure modes (p < 0.05).

RESULTS

TSEP + FUJI and H3PO4 + SU + TXT showed the highest SBS values while H3PO4 + TSEP + RIVA showed the lowest value. Cohesive failure and mixed failure were found in the groups with SU and TXT and adhesive failure in the other groups.

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSIONS

The bonding of orthodontic attachments to enamel could be performed with any of the three materials studied. The use of a universal adhesive in the bonding protocol could optimize the adhesion values. Clinical studies would be needed to confirm the results obtained.

Bracket Bond Failures: Incidence and Association with Different Risk Factors-A Retrospective Study

BACKGROUND

Bracket bonding failure is one of the relevant problems in fixed orthodontics therapy, which affects the total treatment and quality of treatment results. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the frequency of bracket bond failure and find out risk factors.

METHODS

A total of 101 patients with an age range of 11-56 years were included in this retrospective study and treated for a mean period of 30.2 months. Inclusion criteria were: males and females with permanent dentition and completed orthodontic treatment in both fully bonded dental arches. Risk factors were calculated using binary logistic regression analysis.

RESULTS

The overall bracket failure rate was 14.65%. The bracket failure rate was significantly higher in the younger patients' group (p = 0.003). In most cases, patients experienced bracket failures in the first month of the treatment. Most of the bracket bond failures occurred on the left lower first molar (29.1%) and were twice as common in the lower dental arch (66.98%). Patients with increased overbite had an increased likelihood of bracket loss (p = 0.042). Class II malocclusion increased the relative risk of bracket failure, while Class III decreased the rate of bracket failure, but the difference was not statistically significant (p = 0.093).

CONCLUSIONS

The bracket bond failure rate was higher in younger patients than in older patients. Brackets placed on mandibular molars and premolars had the highest failure rate. Class II was associated with an increased bracket failure rate. Increased overbite statistically significantly increases bracket failure rate.