Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system

The effect of different mechanical retention forms on shear bond strength of rebonding of ceramic brackets

The objective of this study is to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and the morphological characteristics and chemical compositions of the base surface of newly bonded and rebonded ceramic brackets with different mechanical retention bases. Sixty extracted human premolars were divided into the newly bonded and rebonded groups. Ceramic brackets with patterned, laser-etched, and particle-coated patterned bases were randomly bonded to the tooth samples in each group (n=10 per base type). The rebonded brackets exhibited significantly lower SBS than the newly bonded brackets (p<0.05). The main chemical composition of the brackets in both groups was aluminum on the energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Scanning electron microscopy imaging showed the presence of regular-shaped undercuts or irregular micro-undercuts on the bracket bases which mostly remained intact even after debonding and sandblasting, while coated particles disappeared. The rebonded ceramic brackets with mechanical retention bases exhibited clinically acceptable bond strength regardless of retentive forms.

Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets

Objective: To investigate if primers can be used to modify bonding characteristics of orthodontic brackets.

Materials and methods: Stainless steel, zirconia-alumina ceramic and polycarbonate brackets were bonded to enamel with and without universal and bracket material specific primers on the bracket base. Orthodontic adhesive cement (Transbond™XT) was used for bonding. The primers in each group (n = 10) were silane based (RelyX™ Ceramic Primer) and universal primer (Monobond Plus) for ceramic and metal brackets, and adhesive resin (Adper™ Scotchbond™ Multi-Purpose Adhesive) and composite primer (GC Composite Primer) for polycarbonate brackets. Controls with no primer were used for all bracket types. Teeth with bonded brackets were stored in distilled water in 37 °C for 7 days and debonded with static shear loading. Debonding forces were recorded and analyzed with ANOVA. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined and enamel damage examined.

Results: The bond strength without primers was 8.14 MPa (±1.49) for metal, 21.9 MPa (±3.55) for ceramic and 10.47 MPa (±2.11) for polycarbonate brackets (p < .05). Using silane as primer increased the bond strength of ceramic brackets significantly to 26.45 MPa (±5.00) (p < .05). ARI-scores were mostly 2–3 (>50% of the adhesive left on the enamel after debonding), except with silane and ceramic brackets, ARI-score was mostly 0–1 (>50% of the adhesive left on the bracket). Debonding caused fractured enamel in four specimens with ceramic brackets.

Conclusions: Bond strength was highest for ceramic brackets. Silane primer increased bond strength when used with ceramic brackets leading to enamel fractures, but otherwise primers had only minor effect on the bond strength values.

Shear bond strength of ceramic and metal brackets bonded to enamel using color-change adhesive

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and metal brackets bonded to the enamel using Grengloo color-change adhesive and Transbond XT conventional composite.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In this in vitro, experimental study, 120 extracted human premolars were divided into four groups: (1) Grengloo with metal brackets, (2) Grengloo with ceramic brackets, (3) Transbond XT with metal brackets, and (4) Transbond XT with ceramic brackets. After bracket bonding, the teeth were subjected to 500 thermal cycles and incubated at 37°C for 24 h. The SBS was measured and the data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA. Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores. was statistically significant (P < 0.001).

RESULTS

The effect of type of bracket (metal/ceramic) on SBS was not statistically significant (P = 0.368). However, the effect of type of composite on SBS was statistically significant (P < 0.001) and the SBS of Grengloo was higher than that of Transbond XT. No significant difference was found in ARI scores among the groups.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the high SBS and the safe region of bond failure in Grengloo composite, this color-change adhesive can be a suitable alternative in cases that require high bond strength. Furthermore, the color contrast of Grengloo can make composite removal easier than Transbond XT with color match of composite and teeth.

Debonding force and shear bond strength of an array of CAD/CAM-based customized orthodontic brackets, placed by indirect bonding- An In Vitro study

Based on three-dimensional scanning and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques, customized bracket systems are increasingly used. However, data remain limited regarding customized bracket design, characteristics, and stability. This study was undertaken to evaluate the design, bond strength, and residual adhesives of four different CAD/CAM customized brackets that were attached to human tooth specimens by indirect bonding. Thirty extracted human upper premolars were divided into five groups: Group 1, preadjusted self-ligating labial metal bracket; Group 2, lingual self-ligating metal injection molding customized bracket; Group 3, gold-casted lingual customized bracket; Group 4, labial self-ligating milled customized bracket; Group 5, labial customized resin base bracket. Except in Group 1, premolar specimens were scanned via model scanner, and the images were sent to each manufacturing company to fabricate customized brackets and transfer trays/jigs. Debonding force (DF; N) was measured by Instron universal testing machine and shear bond strength (SBS; MPa) was calculated via dividing DF by bonding area. Adhesive remnants were analyzed via stereo microscopic images. Group 2 (196.90±82.75 N) exhibited significantly higher DF than Group 1 (62.77±12.65 N); other groups exhibited similar DFs, compared with Group 1. No customized bracket groups exhibited significant differences in SBS, relative to Group 1 (6.73±1.36 MPa). However, SBS in Group 5 (11.46±7.22 MPa) was significantly higher than in Group 3 (3.58±2.14 MPa). Group 3 had significantly lower ARI scores than other groups (P<0.05). Customized brackets exhibited large deviations in DF and SBS; all customized bracket systems exhibited DF that was equivalent or superior to that of preadjusted brackets, even when placed by indirect bonding.

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study

INTRODUCTION

Knowledge about the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets with different base design is essential as it affects bond strength to enamel.

AIM

The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effect of base designs of different ceramic brackets on SBS, and to determine the fracture site after debonding.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four groups of ceramic brackets and one group of metal brackets with different base designs were used. Adhesive precoated base of Clarity Advanced (APC Flash-free) (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), microcrystalline base of Clarity Advanced (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), polymer mesh base of InVu (TP Orthodontics, Inc., La Porte, IN, United States), patented bead ball base of Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, California), and a mechanical mesh base of Gemini Metal bracket (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California). Ten brackets of each type were bonded to 50 maxillary premolars with Transbond XT (Unitek/3M). Samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine (Model 3382; Instron Corp., Canton, Massachusetts, USA) at a cross head speed of 1mm/minute with the help of a chisel. The debonded interface was recorded and analyzed to determine the predominant bond failure site under an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope) at 10X magnification. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare SBS. Tukey's significant differences tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were compared by chi-square test.

RESULTS

Mean SBS of microcrystalline base (27.26±1.73), was the highest followed by bead ball base (23.45±5.09), adhesive precoated base (20.13±5.20), polymer mesh base (17.54±1.91), and mechanical mesh base (17.50±2.41) the least. Comparing the frequency (%) of ARI Score among the groups, chi-square test showed significantly different ARI scores among the groups (χ² = 34.07, p<0.001).

CONCLUSION

Different base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence SBS to enamel and all were clinically acceptable.