Influence of different methods of cleaning custom bases on the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets

Kanashiro, Lylian Kazumi; Robles-Ruíz, Julissa Janet; Ciamponi, Ana Lídia; Medeiros, Igor Studart; Tortamano, André; Paiva, João Batista de

doi:10.1179/1465313313y.0000000090

Cited by 6 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…After detachment, the buccal surfaces of teeth were analyzed through stereomicroscopic magnifying glass with magnification of 40 times to detect the amount of remaining adhesive and classified according to the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) [8][9][10][11][12][13], proposed in 1986 [14], with scores from 0 to 3: Score 0 = no remaining adhesive; Score 1 = less than 50% of the remaining adhesive; Score 2 = more than 50% of the remaining adhesive; Score 3 = 100% of the adhesive on the tooth.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies in literature have analyzed shear tests with metallic and ceramic brackets [9], with recycled brackets [5], with etch self-adhesive systems [10], with metal brackets fixed with composite photo and chemically activated resins [11] and different cleaning methods for orthodontic bracket bases [8]. Based on the above, the aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the shear strength of metallic brackets.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Undoubtedly, one of the greatest advantages of laboratory tests is the possibility of a strict control of the study phases, since external variables could influence the results. From the classic study that first assessed the adhesive dentistry in 1955 [7], these tests have been used to evaluate the bond strength of dental materials [3][4][5][6][7][8].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Shear Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets: An In Vitro Stud

Melo¹,

Mn²,

Aol³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate in vitro the shear bond strength of metallic brackets. Material and Methods: Forty premolars were divided into four groups (n = 10) according to the type of brackets used (G1: Morelli® Light; G2: Morelli® Standard; G3: Morelli® Max; G4: Abzil® Agile). For bonding, Transbond XT® (3M Unitek) resin was used in all groups. Teeth were embedded in ¾ inch PVC tubes with special plaster stone, perpendicular to the ground. Brackets were fixed on the geometric centers of the exposed crowns. After bonding, teeth were stored in distilled water, incubated at 37ºC for 24 hours and submitted to 500 thermal cycles for 30 seconds in each bath (5°C and 55°C), respectively. The bond strength test was performed on the Instron® mechanical testing machine with 3kg load cell at speed of 0.5mm/min. Data were submitted to statistical analysis through the Statistica® software, version 5.0, by Kruscal Wallis test, ANOVA and Tukey (p< 0.05). Results: There was no statistically significant difference in the ARI scores; whereas for shear resistance, this difference was significant (Averages: G1 -Light: 17.53MPa; G2 -Standard: 18.11MPa; G3 -Max: 29.33MPa; G4 -Agile: 11.37MPa) and G3 showed better performance, compared to the others. All other groups showed similar behavior among themselves. Conclusion: Max bracket had the highest shear strength. Further studies should be conducted to investigate the meshes of brackets tested in this study.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shear Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets: An In Vitro Stud

Melo¹,

Mn²,

Aol³

et al. 2015

Pesqui. bras. odontopediatria clín. integr.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the literature on direct and indirect bonding (30,32,33,35,36), the ARI scores were usually 1 and 2 for most of the resins. This shows us that the fracture type is usually cohesive.…”

Section: In Vitro Assessment Of Adhesive Remnant After Bracket Debondmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The score was a 4-point scale, which was determined according to the remaining adhesive at the bracket base; 0=all adhesive left on the bracket base, 1=more than half of the adhesive left on the bracket base, 2=less than half of the adhesive left on the bracket base, and 3=no adhesive left on the bracket base. In 1990, Bishara and Trulove (39) developed a 5-point scale for ARI scores: 1=no adherence of composite on the bracket base, 2=less than 10% of composite remaining on the bracket surface, 3=more than 10% but less than 90% of composite remaining on the bracket surface, 4=more than 90% of composite remaining on the bracket surface, and 5=all composite remaining on the bracket base.In the literature on direct and indirect bonding (30,32,33,35,36), the ARI scores were usually 1 and 2 for most of the resins. This shows us that the fracture type is usually cohesive.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Indirect Bonding Revisited

Pamukçu¹,

Özsoy²

2017

Turk J Orthod

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the popularity of indirect bonding increased due to advantages such as reduction of chair time and enhancement of patient comfort. Although the indirect bonding technique has improved over the years, the literature has shown different techniques of bracket placement; furthermore, new materials were specially developed for this technique. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the literature, advantages, disadvantages, and laboratory and clinical stages of the indirect bonding technique. Keywords: Indirect bonding, bonding systems, orthodontics indirect technique INTRODUCTIONIndirect bonding was developed by Silverman and Cohen (1) in 1972 to reduce clinical time and to enhance patient comfort. In this method, they used cement for attaching brackets to the stone model, a sealant as a clinical adhesive, and thermoplastic trays for the transfer of the brackets. In 1979, Thomas (2) invented "custom composite base technique, " which is still the most widely accepted technique currently used for indirect bonding. In this technique, Thomas used a chemically-cured resin for attaching the brackets in a laboratory and a universal and a catalyst resin as the clinical adhesive. The major complication of the Thomas technique is that the polymerization of the chemical resin starts in the patient's mouth, which is problematic in terms of time. If the transfer tray was removed before the completion of polymerization, bracket failure can be seen, and if the tray was left in the mouth for too long, this can disrupt the patient comfort. To solve this problem, the Thomas technique was modified; the universal and catalyst resins were mixed outside the mouth and directly applied to the teeth and custom base (3). With the modified Thomas technique, indirect bonding achieved similar bond strength values compared with direct bonding.In the previous literature, chemically-cured resins were usually used as clinical adhesives for indirect bonding. Apart from these resins, glass ionomer cements, acrylic epoxy adhesives, and cyanoacrylates were also used (4-6).Read and O'Brien (7) used light-cured resins for indirect bonding in 1990, and with the advantages of these resins, the indirect bonding technique was further enhanced.In 2002, Miles (8) used a flowable composite in indirect bonding. The most important advantage of this resin was to fill the voids of the custom base with its favorable viscosity.With the advancement of technology, computers entered the practice of orthodontics, thereby enhancing the indirect bonding technique. Several companies offer three-dimensional computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (3D CAD-CAM)-generated methods for the fabrication of indirect bonding trays. In one of these, Suresmile (Orametrix Inc.; Dallas, USA) system (9), teeth are scanned using an intraoral scanner, and computer generated 3D images are produced. These 3D images are used for digital set-up, and the brackets are placed in appropriate regions of the teeth. The customized transfer trays for in...

show abstract

Evaluation of the effects of two different indirect bonding methods on strength of the brackets in mandibular model of severe anterior crowding

Ertuğrul

Alkan

2021

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An indirect bonding method was developed to solve the problems likely to be encountered during proper positioning of the brackets. The aim of this study is to compare two different indirect bonding methods on the bond strength of the brackets. A 160 extracted human lower incisors were assigned into two groups.Transparent silicone material and bioplast material were used in transfer tray preparation in groups 1 and 2, respectively. Transbond XT adhesive system was used to bond brackets to teeth in both groups. A high intensity LED light source was used for 3 s for adhesive polymerization. Brackets were subjected to shear forces with universal test machine under 0.5 mm/min crosshead speed until failure. Adhesive Remnant Index was used to assess the amount of adhesive remnant on enamel surface after shear test under 10Â magnification. Two subjects from both groups were evaluated for enamel surface characteristics with scanning electron microscope (SEM). Mean shear bond strengths were found to be 5.13 ± 1.8 MPa and 5.93 ± 2.19 MPa for silicone and bioplast groups, respectively. Bioplast group showed significantly greater shear bond strength than that of the silicone group. Maximum ARI score, assessed under Â10 magnification was 3 in both groups. A score of 3 was significantly more frequent in bioplast group. Differences were seen between the groups in terms of enamel surface characteristics under SEM evaluation. It was determined that bioplast material, which is considered to be the gold standard for the indirect bonding method, has greater shear bond strength than silicone material.

show abstract

Influence of different methods of cleaning custom bases on the shear bond strength of indirectly bonded brackets

Abstract: The four custom base-cleaning methods presented the same efficiencies on indirect bond of the brackets; thus, practitioners can choose the method that works best for them.

Cited by 6 publications

References 23 publications

Shear Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets: An In Vitro Stud

Shear Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets: An In Vitro Stud

Indirect Bonding Revisited

Evaluation of the effects of two different indirect bonding methods on strength of the brackets in mandibular model of severe anterior crowding

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About