Introduction: There is a great variety of orthodontic brackets in the Brazilian market, and constantly evaluating them is critical for professionals to know their properties, so as to be able to choose which product best suits their clinical practice. Objectives:To evaluate the bond strength and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) of different brands of metal brackets. Material and Methods:A total of 105 bovine incisors were used, and brackets of different brands were bonded to teeth. Seven different bracket brands were tested (MorelliTM, American OrthodonticsTM, TP OrthodonticsTM, Abzil-3MTM, OrthometricTM, TecnidentTM and UNIDENTM). Twenty-four hours after bonding, shear bond strength test was performed; and after debonding, the ARI was determined by using an optical microscope at a 10-fold increase. Results: Mean shear bond strength values ranged from 3.845 ± 3.997 (MorelliTM) to 9.871 ± 5.106 MPa (TecnidentTM). The majority of the ARI index scores was 0 and 1. Conclusion:Among the evaluated brackets, the one with the lowest mean shear bond strength values was MorelliTM. General evaluation of groups indicated that a greater number of bond failure occurred at the enamel/adhesive interface.

Objective: To evaluate the pulp chamber temperature rise (PCTR) in light-cure bonding of brackets with and without primer, in intact and restored mandibular central incisors (M1), maxillary first premolars (Mx4), and mandibular third molars (M8). Material and Methods: Ninety human teeth were included: M1 (n=30), Mx4 (n=30), and M8 (n=30). Light-cure bonding of brackets was performed in intact (n=60) and restored (n=30) teeth, with primer (n=60) or without (n=30) primer. PCTR was defined as the difference between initial (T0) and peak temperatures (T1), recorded with a thermocouple during light-cure bonding. Differences on PCTR between bonding techniques (primer vs. no primer), teeth types (M1 vs. Mx4 vs. M8), and teeth condition (intact vs. restored) were estimated by ANCOVA, with α=5%. Results: PCTR was significantly higher with the use of primer (2.05 ± 0.08oC) than without primer (1.65 ± 0.14oC) (p=0.02), and in M1 (2.23 ± 0.22oC) compared to Mx4 (1.56 ± 0.14oC) (p<0.01). There was no difference in the PCTR in M8 (1.77 ± 0.28oC) compared to M1 or Mx4 (p>0.05), and no difference between intact (1.78 ± 0.14oC) and restored (1.92 ± 0.08oC) teeth (p=0.38). There was no influence of dentin enamel thickness in the PCTR (p=0.19). Conclusion: PCTR was higher in light-cure bonding of brackets with primer, especially in M1. Light-cure bonding seems less invasive without primer.

No abstract

Objective: To compare the mechanical strength of joints made by conventional soldering with those made by alternative, more biocompatible, methods (spot, tungsten inert gas [TIG] and laser welding), and to compare the microstructural morphology of wires welded with these techniques. Design: In vitro, laboratory study. Methods: Forty stainless-steel wire segments with 0.8-mm diameter were joined by silver soldering, spot, laser and TIG welding. Ten specimens were produced for each one. Tensile strength test was performed 24 h after welding on the Emic DL2000™ universal testing machine, using a load cell of 1000 N with a crosshead speed of 10 mm/min. Results: The highest tensile strength mean values were obtained with silver soldering (532 N), next were laser (420 N), spot (301 N) and TIG (296 N) welding. Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups; the Dunn post-hoc test revealed differences between laser and spot welding ( p=0.046), laser and TIG ( p = 0.016), spot and silver ( p <0.001), and silver and TIG ( p <0.001). Conclusion: Laser welding strength is high, and comparable to silver welding. Spot and TIG techniques present comparable and significantly lower strengths. The four methods presented resistance values compatible with orthodontic use. The microstructural morphology is different for each technique. The association between the mechanical performance and the microstructure evaluation shows that laser presented the highest quality joint.