Bond strength: A comparison between chemical coated and mechanical interlock bases of ceramic and metal brackets

Wang, Wei Nan; Meng, Ching Liang; Tarng, Tien Hsiang

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(97)80019-4

Cited by 50 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Most were carried out in vitro and on small samples of teeth, usually premolars. 2,4,9,11,19,20 These conditions could represent serious limitations as concerns the scientific relevance of the research; furthermore, potential differences in the debonding pattern, relative to the tooth position in the arch, do not emerge. To date, minimal information is available regarding possible differences in the debonding pattern between maxillary and mandibular teeth.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…6 A small number of studies are available regarding enamel detachments during debonding (very few were conducted in vivo), and the related findings are often contradictory. 4,7,24,25 One possible explanation for this fact is that enamel damage is more likely to occur in extracted teeth, as they are more desiccated than vital teeth. 24 Another limitation of some studies 4 is that they did not adopt an adequate SEM magnification (203) to distinguish enamel from resin.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…[1][2][3] Nevertheless, damage to the enamel due to debonding has been, and still is, a concern to clinicians because it is reported to occur in vitro [4][5][6] and in vivo. 7,8 During bracket removal, bond failure can occur at the adhesive-enamel or at the adhesive-bracket interface (adhesive failure), or within the adhesive (cohesive failure); generally, a combination of adhesive and cohesive failure (mixed failure) takes place.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Zanarini

Gracco

Lattuca

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n 5 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n 5 100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data. Results: Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P , .0001 and P 5 .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P , .323 and P 5 .0001, respectively). Conclusion: The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:885-891.)

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Zanarini

Gracco

Lattuca

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In an effort to prevent enamel fracture, mechanically retentive ceramic brackets that get their retention ability from mechanical undercuts were developed; however, these have significantly less bond strength than the chemically bonded (silane) ceramic brackets. 26,27 The double-mesh base design of the stainless steel brackets used as a control showed significantly higher roughness values, whole and unit base surface area, and surface increment ratio than the ceramic brackets. A highly complex arrangement of undercuts is provided in this base design, with a more widely spaced outer mesh and a finer deeper mesh.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…This result supports the notion that the bond strength of these mechanically retentive ceramic brackets is similar to or less than the bonding strength of metal (mechanically retentive) brackets evaluated in previous studies. 27,28 Among ceramic brackets, Crystaline MB showed significantly higher roughness values and a larger unit base surface area than Inspire Ice and INVU. The bracket base surface feature of Crystaline MB has a prominent irregular pattern with numerous spikes in 3D interferograms ( Figure 2B), and this pattern seems to contribute to the increase in the unit bracket surface area with micro-CT ( Figure 3B).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

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

Kang

Choi

Yul

et al. 2012

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate the three-dimensional structural features of three types of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket bases. Materials and Methods: One type of stainless steel (MicroArch, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan) and three types of ceramic maxillary right central incisor brackets-Crystaline MB (Tomy), INVU (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), and Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, Calif)-were tested to compare and quantitatively analyze differences in the surface features of each ceramic bracket base using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), a three-dimensional (3D) optical surface profiler, and microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). One-way analysis of variance was used to find differences in bracket base surface roughness values and surface areas between groups according to base designs. Tukey's honestly significant differences tests were used for post hoc comparisons. Results: SEM revealed that each bracket exhibited a unique surface texture (MicroArch, double mesh; Crystaline MB, irregular; INVU, single mesh; Inspire Ice, bead ball). With a 3D optical surface profiler, the stainless steel bracket showed significantly higher surface roughness values. Crystaline MB had significantly higher surface roughness values than Inspire Ice. Micro-CT demonstrated that stainless steel brackets showed significantly higher whole and unit bracket base surface areas. Among ceramic brackets, INVU showed significantly higher whole bracket base surface area, and Crystaline MB showed a significantly higher unit bracket base surface area than Inspire Ice. Conclusion: Irregular bracket surface features showed the highest surface roughness values and unit bracket base surface area among ceramic brackets, which contributes to increased mechanically retentive bracket bonding strength. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:705-711.)

show abstract

Does ultra-pulse CO2 laser reduce the risk of enamel damage during debonding of ceramic brackets?

et al. 2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study seeks to evaluate the enamel surface characteristics of teeth after debonding of ceramic brackets with or without laser light. Eighty premolars were bonded with either of the chemically retained or the mechanically retained ceramic brackets and later debonded conventionally or through a CO(2) laser (188 W, 400 Hz). The laser was applied for 5 s with scanning movement. After debonding, the adhesive remnant index (ARI), the incidence of bracket and enamel fracture, and the lengths, frequency, and directions of enamel cracks were compared among the groups. The increase in intrapulpal temperature was measured in ten extra specimens. The data were analyzed with SPSS software. There was one case of enamel fracture in the chemical retention/conventional debonding group. When brackets were removed with pliers, incidences of bracket fracture were 45% for the chemical retention, and 15% for the mechanical retention brackets. No case of enamel or bracket fracture was seen in the laser-debonded teeth. A significant difference was observed in ARI scores among the groups. Laser debonding caused a significant decrease in the frequency of enamel cracks, compared to conventional debonding. The increase in intrapulpal temperatures was below the benchmark of 5.5 °C for all the specimens. Laser-assisted debonding of ceramic brackets could reduce the risk of enamel damage and bracket fracture, and produce the more desirable ARI scores without causing thermal damage to the pulp. However, some augmentations in the length and frequency of enamel cracks should be expected with all debonding methods.

show abstract

Bond strength: A comparison between chemical coated and mechanical interlock bases of ceramic and metal brackets

Cited by 50 publications

References 16 publications

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

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

Does ultra-pulse CO2 laser reduce the risk of enamel damage during debonding of ceramic brackets?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About