Evaluation of mechanical properties of esthetic brackets

Matsui, Shigeyuki; Umezaki, Eisaku; Komazawa, Daigo; Otsuka, Yuichiro; Suda, Naoto

doi:10.1177/1758736015574401

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 13 publications

(19 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although metal brackets are less esthetic, they can undergo corrosion[ 11 ] and can release the minimum quantities of chromium[ 12 ] and nickel,[ 13 ] these brackets present advantages over ceramic and polycarbonate brackets, such as improved adhesion, easier debonding, and lower friction. [ 14 15 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing

Sfondrini¹,

Scribante²,

Fraticelli³

et al. 2015

J Orthodont Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives:To conduct an epidemiological survey of the orthodontic debonding techniques in Italy, and describe the most commonly used methods to remove the brackets and adhesive from the tooth surfaces.Materials and Methods:A survey consisting of 6 questions about bracket debonding methods and instruments used was emailed to 1000 orthodontists, who were members of the Italian Orthodontics Society (SIDO. Clinicians were characterized by different sex, age, origin, and professional experience.Results:Overall, 267 surveys were returned, representing a response rate of 26.7% of the participants interviewed. The 0.2% of the orthodontists responded, via email, confirming that they were not interested, while 3% of the questionnaires were sent back not completed. The 70.1% of the clinicians interviewed did not return any response. Overall, 64% of SIDO members (orthodontists) did not detect any enamel damage after debonding. The brackets used most frequently (89.14%) in clinical practice were the metal ones. The most commonly used pliers for bracket removal were cutters (37.08%) and bracket removal pliers (34.83%). For adhesive removal, low speed tungsten carbide burs under irrigation were the most widely utilized method for adhesive removal (40.08%), followed by high speed carbide burs (14.19%), and diamond burs (14.19%). The most frequently used instruments for polishing after debonding were rubber cups (36.70%) and abrasive discs (21.35%). The 31.21% of the orthodontists found esthetic enamel changes before bonding versus after debonding.Conclusions:This survey showed the high variability of different methods for bracket debonding, adhesive removal, and tooth polishing. The collected answers indicate that most orthodontists have developed their own armamentarium of debonding and polishing, basing their method on trials and errors.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Epidemiological survey of different clinical techniques of orthodontic bracket debonding and enamel polishing

Sfondrini¹,

Scribante²,

Fraticelli³

et al. 2015

J Orthodont Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A comparison between metal, ceramic, and plastic brackets has shown that slot wall rigidity varied according to the material. Low rigidity brackets such as plastic, and to a lesser degree, metallic ones, allowed more play for the wire than rigid ceramic brackets (Harzer, Bourauel, & Gmyrek, 2004;Matsui, Umezaki, Komazawa, Otsuka, & Suda, 2015;Möller, Klocke, Sadat-Khonsari, Schlegel, & Kahl-Nieke, 2009;Morina, Eliades, Pandis, Jäger, & Bourauel, 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Variability of slot size in orthodontic brackets

Lefebvre

Saadaoui

Olivé

et al. 2019

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe accuracy of the information incorporated into brackets is a determining factor for the efficacy of torque applied to teeth. The aim of this study was to compare the dimensions of a bracket's slots with the nominal values announced by the manufacturer.Materials and methodsA total of 730 maxillary right central brackets manufactured by seven companies (Dentsply Gac, American Orthodontics, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, GC Orthodontics, 3M Unitek, and Dentaurum) were studied. The sample included 0.018 × 0.025 and 0.022 × 0.028 in., metal and ceramic, conventional and self‐ligating brackets. Images were obtained with an Olympus BX51 optical microscope. Slot dimensions were measured at the base and at the face on both mesial and distal sides using ImageJ software. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon, sign tests, two‐ and three‐way ANOVA, and Tukey's tests. Intraclass correlation coefficient was employed to assess the intraobserver and interobserver variability. The threshold for statistical significance was p ≤ .05.ResultsStatistical analysis showed that the slot dimensions of 90% to 97% of studied brackets were significantly different from nominal values. In general, slot size was oversized, with a face size larger than the base size. Comparison between mesial and distal sides showed that up to 45% of the brackets were significantly asymmetrical. The manufacturer had a significant effect for base and face widths (p = .0001) and for length (p = .003).ConclusionThis study shows that a large proportion of measured brackets displays dimensional inaccuracies when compared with stated values. Clinically, the slot oversize and the divergence of slot walls cause an increase of wire‐slot play, inducing a loss of torque control. Practitioners cannot fully trust the precision of used appliances and should be aware that adjustments could be needed in the finishing stages of the treatment.

show abstract

“…This is attributed to the almost non-existing plastic deformation of ceramic brackets and their significantly lower fracture strength compared to metallic brackets. Additionally, the developed stresses in the bracket and its distribution to the underlying adhesive-bracket interface might lead to crack initiation and propagation and subsequent debonding of the bracket (18,19). The elastic properties of the bracket and the adhesive have been associated with differences in the corresponding bond strength (20).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%