Shear peel bond strengths of esthetic orthodontic brackets

Harris, A.M.P.; Joseph, V.P.; Rossouw, P. Emile

doi:10.1016/s0889-5406(05)81055-8

Cited by 73 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…7,8 Ceramic brackets, different from plastic brackets, resist staining and slot distortion and are chemically inert to fluids that are likely to be ingested. However, several disadvantages are associated with ceramic brackets, including (1) the inability to form chemical bonds with adhesives without a coupling agent, (2) low fracture toughness 7 (ie, brittleness that can cause the bracket to fracture and fail), and (3) increased frictional resistance between metal arch wires.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…7 Clinically, reports of bracket fracture and enamel surface damage that occur during debonding of ceramic brackets continue to be a matter of concern to clinicians. 6,8,[16][17][18] To reduce the rate of irreversible enamel surface damage, several methods of debonding of ceramic brackets have been suggested. These include (1) conventional methods in which pliers or wrenches are used, (2) an ultrasonic method that requires the use of special tips, and (3) electrothermal methods that involve transmission of heat to the adhesive through the bracket.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

Bishara

Ostby

Laffoon

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers. Materials and Methods: Thirty maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group 1, Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) pliers. In group 2, Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument (3M Unitek). For all teeth, the same bracket bonding system was used. Following debonding, teeth and brackets were examined under 10ϫ magnification for assessment of bracket failure (fracture) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface. Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive, so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined. Results:The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference ( 2 ϭ 8.73; P ϭ .013) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared. Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding. Conclusions:The hypothesis is rejected. Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups, the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

Bishara

Ostby

Laffoon

et al. 2008

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Silane coupling agent, as a bond promoter (enhancer), has been used successfully, although the results are not conclusive. Harris et al showed that silanizing the debonded ceramic brackets resulted in a rebond strength of 1.8 MPa, 20 which was lower than the minimum values required for clinical success. 21 Toroglu and Yaylali reported that although the combination of silane and sandblasting was not successful, combining silane and silica coating was successful in conditioning the ceramic bracket bases (mean: 12.7 MPa) compared with new ones.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Er,Cr:YSGG Laser as a Novel Method for Rebonding Failed Ceramic Brackets

Sohrabi

Jafari

Kimyai

et al. 2016

Photomedicine and Laser Surgery

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Since there is no standard method for rebonding loose ceramic brackets, the aim of this study was to evaluate the possibility of using Er,Cr:YSGG laser to eliminate the remaining composite materials from the base of ceramic brackets and to compare the bond strength of rebonded brackets with the new ones. Materials and methods: Sixty-two extracted human premolars were mounted in acrylic cylinders. Thirty-one ceramic brackets were bonded, and shear bond strength was tested using Hounsfield testing machine. The remnants of the bonding material were removed from the bases of brackets using Er,Cr:YSGG laser. These brackets were rebonded to 31 fresh teeth and again shear bond strength was measured. Pattern of debonding was assessed in both cases under a stereomicroscope and graded according to ARI index. Data were analyzed with independent t-test and Fisher's exact test. Results: Mean shear bond strength of the bond and rebond groups was 12.29 -5.46 and 10.58 -5.16 MPa, respectively. There were no significant differences between the two groups ( p = 0.21). Pattern of bond failure was not statistically different between the two groups. Conclusions: Er,Cr:YSGG laser was effective in removing the remnants of bonding material from the base of ceramic brackets without any interference with the ceramic base itself, demonstrating that it might be a suitable method for rebonding ceramic brackets.

show abstract

“…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: 99%

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

Shear peel bond strengths of esthetic orthodontic brackets

Cited by 73 publications

References 13 publications

Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

Er,Cr:YSGG Laser as a Novel Method for Rebonding Failed Ceramic Brackets

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About