Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic  Brackets with Different Base Designs:  Comparative In-vitro Study

Ansari, Mohd Younus; Agarwal, Deepak; Gupta, Ankur; Bhattacharya, Preeti; Ansar, Juhi; Bhandari, Ravi

doi:10.7860/jcdr/2016/20624.8910

Cited by 37 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 40 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bond strength to withstand normal orthodontic forces is thought to be within the range of 5.9 to 7. Table 5, the mean ARI score for ceramic Flash-Free adhesive brackets was lower than what was previously found by Lee and Kanavakis 1 , ARI of 3.6, but comparable to Ansari et al 52 , with more than half or all adhesive remaining on the tooth. 65 Group 7 had significantly higher ARI score (4.62) than the other groups.…”

Section: Groupsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…62 Since, majority of ceramic brackets depend on the mechanical retention to form an acceptable bond, the base designs play an important role in the SBS values. 52 The advantage of the ceramic bracket over metal bracket is affinity of the ceramic brackets to incident light which allows more transmission of light onto the bracket base resulting in a higher polymerization of the adhesive compared to stainless-steel brackets. 62 The study measured the shear bond strength of seven different bonding protocols with the use of stainless-steel APC™ II Adhesive brackets and ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive brackets.…”

Section: Bond Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Shear Bond Strength with Novel APC™ Flash-Free Brackets and Different Bonding Protocol: An In Vitro Study

Bernstein¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objectives: In today's time, there is an increasingly crowded field of competition vying over a small subset of the population. Now, more than ever it is imperative to compete with efficiency and esthetics. Each step for orthodontic bonding procedures increases the chance for error to occur. However, orthodontic bracket, etchant, sealant, and adhesive material has the ability to improve bond strength and final outcome for the patient and provider. The aim of this study was to determine effective bonding protocols for Advanced Clarity APC™ Flash-Free Brackets and to determine if adhesive remains on enamel or orthodontic bracket after debond. Experiment Design and Methods: A sample of 105 extracted human premolars were randomly divided to seven groups. Group 1 (control) stainless-steel APC™ II Adhesive Coated bracket bonded with phosphoric acid etch, Transbond™ MIP, Group 2 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket with phosphoric acid etch and Transbond™ MIP, Group 3 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket bonded with Transbond™ plus, Group 4 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket bonded with phosphoric acid etch, Transbond™ plus, Group 5 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket bonded with phosphoric acid etch, Assure Plus, Group 6 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket bonded with phosphoric acid etch, Assure Plus, Pro Seal L.E.D., and Group 7 ceramic APC™ Flash-Free adhesive bracket bonded with Transbond™ Plus, Pro Seal L.E.D.. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to the facial surface of the premolar and placed in a thermocycler for 24 hours with baths of 5 o C and 55 o C. After 24 hours of thermocycling, the bracket was debonded with an Instron machine calculating shear bond strength (SBS). The bracket and tooth interface was looked under 10x magnification to determine the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and the nature of debond failure. Results: To compare the difference in SBS and ARI scores between groups, we utilized one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test. All statistical tests were two-sided and p-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant. There was a significant difference in mean SBS between different groups (p-value <0.001). Group 1 had a significantly greater SBS then all other groups except group 5. Group 7 had less SBS than all other groups. Comparing of ARI scores revealed a significant difference from Group 7. Conclusion: All groups except group 7 have clinically acceptable SBS to withstand occlusal forces during orthodontic treatment. APC™ Flash-Free adhesive has an inconsistent adhesive remnant index, however, there is a tendency for adhesive to remain on enamel after bracket debond. iii DEDICATION To Mom, You are the reason I went to dental school. The life you provided me included your love for me and your success in the dental field. I wanted to be like you, my hero. I am lucky to have the most supportive and caring mom.

show abstract

Section: Groupsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Bond Strengthmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of Shear Bond Strength with Novel APC™ Flash-Free Brackets and Different Bonding Protocol: An In Vitro Study

Bernstein¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The brackets are bonded to enamel with light-curing adhesive cement. When bonding metal brackets, penetration of light under the bracket is limited, and without chemical bonding between the metal bracket and the adhesive cement, the bond strength tends to remain low compared to translucent or chemically bondable ceramic brackets [5][6][7]. Consequently, with metal brackets there is a higher risk for bracket failure but on the other hand, removing brackets is easy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets

Kilponen

Varrela

Vallittu

2019

Biomaterial Investigations in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To investigate if primers can be used to modify bonding characteristics of orthodontic brackets. Materials and methods: Stainless steel, zirconia-alumina ceramic and polycarbonate brackets were bonded to enamel with and without universal and bracket material specific primers on the bracket base. Orthodontic adhesive cement (Transbond TM XT) was used for bonding. The primers in each group (n ¼ 10) were silane based (RelyX TM Ceramic Primer) and universal primer (Monobond Plus) for ceramic and metal brackets, and adhesive resin (Adper TM Scotchbond TM MultiPurpose Adhesive) and composite primer (GC Composite Primer) for polycarbonate brackets. Controls with no primer were used for all bracket types. Teeth with bonded brackets were stored in distilled water in 37 C for 7 days and debonded with static shear loading. Debonding forces were recorded and analyzed with ANOVA. Adhesive remnant index (ARI) was determined and enamel damage examined. Results: The bond strength without primers was 8.14 MPa (±1.49) for metal, 21.9 MPa (±3.55) for ceramic and 10.47 MPa (±2.11) for polycarbonate brackets (p < .05). Using silane as primer increased the bond strength of ceramic brackets significantly to 26.45 MPa (±5.00) (p < .05). ARIscores were mostly 2-3 (>50% of the adhesive left on the enamel after debonding), except with silane and ceramic brackets, ARI-score was mostly 0-1 (>50% of the adhesive left on the bracket). Debonding caused fractured enamel in four specimens with ceramic brackets. Conclusions: Bond strength was highest for ceramic brackets. Silane primer increased bond strength when used with ceramic brackets leading to enamel fractures, but otherwise primers had only minor effect on the bond strength values.

show abstract

“…Based on internal data, the manufacturer of the flash-free adhesive claims reliable bond strength and bracket failure rates lower than 2%. 7 While recent in vitro studies appear to support the claim of favorable bond strength, 8,9 bracket survival with the APC flashfree system has not been independently studied in vivo, and questions remain regarding the time required for adhesive remnant cleanup using this adhesive. Therefore, the objectives of this trial were to compare bracket survival and time required for adhesive remnant removal between the new flash-free and a conventional adhesive resin for orthodontic bracket bonding.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Grünheid

Larson

2018

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To compare bracket survival and adhesive removal time between a flash-free and a conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding. Materials and Methods: Forty-five consecutive patients had their maxillary incisors, canines, and premolars bonded with ceramic brackets using a flash-free adhesive (APC Flash-Free Adhesive, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) on one side and a conventional adhesive (APCII Adhesive, 3M Unitek) on the other side. The side allocation was randomized. Bracket failure was recorded at 4-week intervals. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored on debond and adhesive removal timed to the nearest second. The primary outcome was adhesive removal time per quadrant. Secondary outcomes were bracket failure rate, time to first-time failure of a bracket, and ARI score on debond. Paired t-tests were used to compare adhesive removal times and ARI scores between the adhesives with P < .05 considered statistically significant. Results: Bracket failure rates were 4.3% for the flash-free adhesive and 1.9% for the conventional adhesive, with mean times to first-time failure of 31 weeks for the flash-free adhesive and 42 weeks for the conventional adhesive; neither failure rates nor times to first failure were significantly different. Although the flash-free adhesive left significantly more adhesive on the tooth surface after debonding, the adhesive removal times were 22.2% shorter than with the conventional adhesive. Conclusions: Bracket survival with the flash-free adhesive was equivalent to the conventional adhesive when ceramic brackets were bonded. Adhesive removal was significantly faster when using the flash-free adhesive, which may result in time savings of more than 20% compared with the conventional adhesive.

show abstract

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study

Cited by 37 publications

References 40 publications

Effect of Shear Bond Strength with Novel APC™ Flash-Free Brackets and Different Bonding Protocol: An In Vitro Study

Effect of Shear Bond Strength with Novel APC™ Flash-Free Brackets and Different Bonding Protocol: An In Vitro Study

Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets

A comparative assessment of bracket survival and adhesive removal time using flash-free or conventional adhesive for orthodontic bracket bonding: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About