The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins

Joseph, V.P.; Rossouw, Emile

doi:10.1016/0889-5406(90)70084-p

Cited by 149 publications

(77 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…seven brackets at 248 n¡n exhibited conplete B\À failure. ÀII others 67 tested, except one at 308 Dlnr displayed conplex failure patterns. Greater than 50 I of the bracket base area failure occurred at the B\À interface, yet all brackets demonstrated some degree of E\À or intra-adhesive (I\À) failure' A representative nunber of sampfes' 5 of each bracket type at each wavelength' were exanined under sEM.…”

Section: Um)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets

Tocchio¹,

Williams²,

Mayer³

et al. 1993

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Um)mentioning

confidence: 95%

Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets

Tocchio¹,

Williams²,

Mayer³

et al. 1993

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

122

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A bond failure leaving more residual debris on the bracket base is undesirable because of the increased probability of tooth enamel damage. 11,12,23 Stain and decreased resistance to organic acids may be the result of iatrogenic injury, making the tooth more susceptible to plaque decalcification. 6 A small number of studies are available regarding enamel detachments during debonding (very few were conducted in vivo), and the related findings are often contradictory.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…9 A greater risk of damage to the tooth surface occurs in cases of adhesive failure between resin and enamel. [9][10][11] This happens especially with the use of ceramic brackets, [12][13][14] but enamel fracture may also occur with metal brackets. 6,7 There are several important differences between in vitro and in vivo studies dealing with modes of bracket failure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

Zanarini

Gracco

Lattuca

et al. 2013

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate whether the debonding procedure leads to restitutio ad integrum of the enamel surface by investigating the presence of enamel within the bracket base remnants after debonding. Materials and Methods: Sixty patients who completed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances were included. A total of 1068 brackets were microphotographed; the brackets presenting some remnants on the base (n 5 818) were selected and analyzed with ImageJ software to measure the remnant area. From this population a statistically significant sample (n 5 100) was observed under a scanning electron microscope to check for the presence of enamel within the remnants. Energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry was also performed to obtain quantitative data. Results: Statistically significant differences in the remnant percentage between arches were observed for incisor and canine brackets (P , .0001 and P 5 .022, respectively). From a morphologic analysis of the scanning electron micrographs the bracket bases were categorized in 3 groups: group A, bases presenting a thin enamel coat (83%); group B, bases showing sizable enamel fragments (7%); group C, bases with no morphologic evidence of enamel presence (10%). Calcium presence was noted on all evaluated brackets under energy dispersive x-ray spectrometry. No significant difference was observed in the Ca/Si ratio between group A (16.21%) and group B (18.77%), whereas the Ca/Si ratio in group C (5.40%) was significantly lower than that of the other groups (P , .323 and P 5 .0001, respectively). Conclusion: The objective of an atraumatic debonding is not achieved yet; in some cases the damage could be clinically relevant. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:885-891.)

show abstract

“…Even though it is still used widely, it has some disadvantages: it has been described as technique sensitive due to the need for proper moisture control, 3 it has been reported that moisture in etched enamel may disturb resin penetration and thus reduce adhesion, 4 it has been implicated in enamel decalcification in some cases, 3 and some studies have reported mechanical damage to enamel during debonding after acid etching. [5][6][7] Recently, there has been some interest in using selfetch bonding, a bonding system that could etch, prime, and bond in one step. It no longer requires an etch and rinse phase, which reduces both clinical application time and the risk of making errors during application and manipulation.…”

Section: Introduced the Acid-etch Technique Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

In vitro evaluation of self-etch bonding in orthodontics using cyclic fatigue

Mansour¹,

Drummond

Evans

et al. 2011

The Angle Orthodontist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To evaluate the bond strength of a self-etch bonding system using static loading and cyclic fatigue with shear testing. This is a two-part evaluation; the first part will evaluate shear testing, the second part tensile testing. Materials and Methods: Bovine teeth (n 5 82) were randomly distributed to either a self-etch (Transbond Plus) or total-etch (37% phosphoric-acid + Transbond XT) group. The static shear (SSBS) and cyclic shear (CSBS) bond strengths were measured 24 hours after the bonding of mesh-based brackets. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) and failure sites were evaluated. Results: The mean SSBS was 34.25 6 9.21 and 24.64 6 9.42 MPa for the total-and self-etch groups, respectively. CSBS was 24.07 6 0.65 MPa and 18.92 6 1.08 MPa for the total-and selfetch groups, respectively. Cyclic loading produced lower bond strengths compared to static testing for both adhesives; the difference was only statistically significant for the total-etch system. Comparison of the two materials showed a statistically significant difference between the two techniques. The total-etch had higher bond strengths than the self-etch bonding system. The samples showed a predominance of ARI scored of 2 and 1, and their bonding failure sites were cohesive within the composite. Conclusion: Cyclic loading, simulating occlusal forces, reduces the bond strength of both bonding systems. Even though the self-etch bonding system had lower shear bond strength than the totaletch system, both were still clinically acceptable. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:783-787.)

show abstract

The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins

Cited by 149 publications

References 13 publications

Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets

Laser debonding of ceramic orthodontic brackets

Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding

In vitro evaluation of self-etch bonding in orthodontics using cyclic fatigue

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About