Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study

Stasinopoulos, Dimitrios; Papageorgiou, Spyridon N.; Kirsch, Frank; Daratsianos, Nikolaos; Jäger, Andreas; Bourauel, Christoph

doi:10.2319/081817-559.1

Cited by 32 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(46 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Robb et al (1998) [ 15 ] reported that treatment duration changes up to 46% are related to bracket failure. Literature showed that an increase of 0.3 to 0.6 times in treatment duration could be attributed to each bracket failure [ 12 , 18 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The association between patient’s compliance and age with the bonding failure of orthodontic brackets: a cross-sectional study

Barbosa¹,

Ladewig²,

Almeida–Pedrin³

et al. 2018

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAn efficient orthodontic treatment must aim the best occlusal result in the shortest possible time. One of the factors that can interfere in this goal is the bracket debonding during the treatment. This study aimed at assessing the different factors related to brackets failure, highlighting age and patient cooperation with treatment.MethodsThe sample comprised 199 orthodontic patients of both genders (103 women and 96 men); divided into two groups—adolescents (12 to 18 years old, 118 patients) and adults (19 to 59 years old, 81 patients). A questionnaire was applied regarding the motivation of patients to seek treatment and whether they had received information on appliance care; patients also filled out their level of cooperation with treatment in a visual analog scale (VAS). Additionally, other variables were assessed, such as the teeth with bracket debonding, the presence of deep overbite, and the use of bite plate. The Mann-Whitney test was used, and a 5% significance level was applied for analyses.ResultsIt was observed that 20.1% of patients presented at least one tooth with bracket failure, and the lower arch was the most prevalent site (47.5%). Adolescents presented more debonding (25.4%) than adults (12.3%). Individuals with better VAS scores on cooperation sought treatment on their own (p = 0.042), were adults (p ≤ 0.001), and showed lower rate of failure of brackets (p ≤ 0.001). The factors related to malocclusion and treatment performed had no statistical significance.ConclusionGreater cooperation was expected from adult individuals who sought treatment on their own and presented low rate of bracket failure.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was found that 20% of patients from the sample presented some bracket breakage at the moment of assessment (Table 1 ). The literature shows a great variation in the prevalence of failure—from 3.5 to 23%—due to the different variables that may be considered [ 1 , 16 – 18 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The association between patient’s compliance and age with the bonding failure of orthodontic brackets: a cross-sectional study

Barbosa¹,

Ladewig²,

Almeida–Pedrin³

et al. 2018

Prog Orthod.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although bonding brackets to teeth with composite resins has been a common procedure in orthodontics for many decades, bond failure during treatment is a frequently encountered problem and has a negative impact on the orthodontic treatment, such as increased chair time for the re-bond or prolonged overall treatment duration [1]. Failure of lingual brackets may have an even higher negative impact on clinical practice compared to labial appliances, because of the reduced field of view and the prefabricated individualized materials used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of enamel sandblasting on the shear bond strength and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex tested in vitro by the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard

et al. 2018

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVES This study was conducted in order to investigate whether enamel sandblasting as an adjunct or substitute to the acid-etch technique has an effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex using the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard. MATERI-ALS AND METHODS Upper central incisor brackets (discovery®, Dentaurum, Germany) were bonded using Transbond XT™ (3M Unitek, Germany) on bovine incisors prepared by four different methods (15 samples each): sandblasting with 27 m AlO at 1.2 bar (s), acid etching with 37.4% phosphoric acid (a), sandblasting with 27 m AlO at 1.2 bar followed by acid etching (s1a), and sandblasting with 50 m AlO at 5.7 bar followed by acid etching (s2a). The SBS and adhesive remnant index (ARI) were measured, followed by one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact tests at 5%. RESULTS The SBS in groups s (5.6 ± 2.2 MPa), a (17.1 ± 4.3 MPa), s1a (18.3 ± 4.3 MPa), and s2a (18.5 ± 4.6 MPa) indicated that the s group was significantly inferior to all the other groups (p < 0.001). Likewise, the ARI analysis indicated a different performance of the s group (mostly ARI of 0) compared to the other groups (p < 0.001) and a tendency for different ARI between the a and s1a/s2a groups. CONCLUSIONS In vitro enamel sandblasting could not substitute acid etching and did not offer improved SBS when used before acid etching, regardless of air pressure and powder granulation. Sandblasting without acid etching produced less residual resin on the tooth after debonding. CLINICAL RELEVANCE The clinical use of adjunct enamel sandblasting prior to etching to enhance SBS has to be questioned. Abstract Objectives: To investigate by the DIN 13990:2017-04-standard, whether enamel sandblasting as an adjunct or substitute to the acid-etch technique has an effect on the shear bond strength (SBS) and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex. Materials and Methods: Upper central incisor brackets (discovery®, Dentaurum, Germany) were bonded using Transbond XT™ (3M Unitek, Germany) on bovine incisors prepared by four different methods (15 samples each): sandblasting with 27 μm Al2O3 at 1.2 bar (s), acid etching with 37.4 % phosphoric acid (a),sandblasting with 27 µm Al2O3 at 1.2 bar followed by acid etching (s1a) and sandblasting with 50 μm Al2O3 at 5.7 bar followed by acid etching (s2a). The SBS and Adhesive-Remnant-Index (ARI) were measured, followed by one-way analysis of variance and Fisher's exact tests at 5%. Results:The SBS in the groups s (5.6±2.2 MPa), a (17.1±4.3 MPa), s1a (18.3±4.3 MPa) and s2a (18.5±4.6 MPa) indicated that the s group was significantly inferior to all other groups (p<0.001). Likewise, the ARI analysis indicated different performance of the s group (mostly ARI of 0) compared to the other groups (P<0.001) and a tendency for different ARI between the a and s1a/s2a groups. Conclusions:In-vitro enamel sandblasting could not substitute acid etching and did not offer improved SBS when used before acid etching, regardless of air pressure and powde...

show abstract

“…Higher values were obtained byÅrtun [25], who compared the failure rates of the ceramic brackets with mechanical or chemical retention and found 1.7% and 3.2%, respectively. Recently, Stasinopoulos et al [26], in retrospective study, reported a detachment rate of the ceramic brackets of 20%. e authors, however, included in the survey only the patient with at least one bracket failure during the orthodontic treatment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…On the other hand, Krishnan et al [33] noted 1.7 times higher failure rate in the anterior region. Recent survey focused on the evaluation of patterns of bracket failure relates this to the increased activation forces exerted by an archwire in the crowded dental arches or increased mastication load [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

Ogiński

Kawala

Mikulewicz

et al. 2020

BioMed Research International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective. Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. Materials and Methods. The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly divided into two 10-member groups. Group 1 was treated with Abzil Agile (3M Unitek) stainless steel brackets; group 2 was treated with Radiance (American Orthodontics) monocrystalline ceramic brackets. All the brackets were bonded by the same operator. Over the next 12 months, all bracket failures were recorded with each appointment. The received data were processed statistically using the Mantel–Cox test, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox hazard model. Results. A total of 381 brackets were bonded, 195 of which were metallic brackets and 186 were ceramic ones. In the 12-month observation period, there were 14 metal (7.2%) and 2 ceramic bracket (1.1%) failures. The overall failure rate was 4.2% (n = 16). The majority of failures (14 brackets; 87.5%) occurred during the first 6 months of the experiment, 12 (83%) of which were metal brackets and 2 (100%) were ceramic brackets. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusions. Metal brackets demonstrated significantly higher failure rates than ceramic brackets for both 6- and 12-month observation periods (p<0.05). The 6% difference between the brackets is clinically significant as it corresponds to one additional failure within 12 months.

show abstract

Failure patterns of different bracket systems and their influence on treatment duration: A retrospective cohort study

Abstract: Bracket failure was more often observed with ceramic brackets and was associated with increased treatment duration.

Cited by 32 publications

References 30 publications

The association between patient’s compliance and age with the bonding failure of orthodontic brackets: a cross-sectional study

The association between patient’s compliance and age with the bonding failure of orthodontic brackets: a cross-sectional study

The influence of enamel sandblasting on the shear bond strength and fractography of the bracket-adhesive-enamel complex tested in vitro by the DIN 13990:2017-04 standard

A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About