Effect of different resin removal methods on enamel after metal and ceramic bracket debonding

Planar static frictional phenomena were investigated for two types of ceramic and one type of stainless steel orthodontic bracket against rectangular stainless steel archwire. The brackets studied were ‘Starfire’ (single crystal aluminium oxide), ‘Allure III’ (polycrystalline aluminium oxide), and ‘Dentaurum’ (stainless steel). The investigative parameters were: bracket material, force of ligation and whether the brackets were new or ‘worn’. Without exception, both types of ceramic bracket produced greater frictional resistance than the stainless steel brackets throughout testing. At a ligation force of 500 g, the Starfire bracket gave the greatest frictional resistance. At ligation forces of 200 and 50 g, the greatest frictional resistance was seen with Allure III. After a period of simulated wear, frictional resistance of Starfire tended to increase at the greatest ligation load while that of both ceramics decreased slightly at the two lower ligation loads. The ceramic brackets caused abrasive wear of the archwire surfaces and the consequent wear debris may have contributed to the changes in frictional resistance seen with Starfire and Allure III. Dentaurm brackets produced minimal frictional resistance in any test and negligible change with wear.

Download Full-text

Frictional forces and surface topography of a new ceramic bracket

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ◽

10.1016/s0889-5406(94)70047-8 ◽

1994 ◽

Vol 106 (3) ◽

pp. 273-278 ◽

Cited By ~ 20

Author(s):

Kazuo Tanne ◽

Susumu Matsubara ◽

Yoshihisa Hotei ◽

Mamoru Sakuda ◽

Masahiro Yoshida

Keyword(s):

Surface Topography ◽

Frictional Forces ◽

Ceramic Bracket

Download Full-text

Shear bond strength relative to various ceramic bracket bases

American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics ◽

10.1016/s0889-5406(08)80149-7 ◽

1992 ◽

Vol 101 (6) ◽

pp. 573

Keyword(s):

Bond Strength ◽

Shear Bond Strength ◽

Ceramic Bracket

Download Full-text

Microleakage beneath Ceramic and Metal Brackets Bonded with a Conventional and an Antibacterial Adhesive System

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/101805-368 ◽

2006 ◽

Vol 76 (6) ◽

pp. 1028-1034 ◽

Cited By ~ 32

Author(s):

Neslihan Arhun ◽

Ayca Arman ◽

Sevi Burçak Çehreli ◽

Serdar Arıkan ◽

Erdem Karabulut ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Adhesive System ◽

White Spot Lesions ◽

Adhesive Interface ◽

Group 4 ◽

Significant Difference ◽

Ceramic Brackets ◽

Group 3 ◽

Group 2 ◽

Ceramic Bracket ◽

Nail Varnish

Abstract Objective: To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 = Transbond XT + metal bracket, group 2 = Transbond XT + ceramic bracket, group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond + ceramic bracket, and group 4 = Clearfil Protect Bond + metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesive-tooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A significant difference was observed among all groups (P < .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited significantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearfil Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive. Conclusions: Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions.

Download Full-text

COMPARISON OF LOAD DEFLECTION PROPERTIES AND FRICTIONAL RESISTANCE OF CONVENTIONAL NITI ARCHWIRES AND COATED NITI ARCHWIRES GENERATED IN VARIOUS CERAMIC BRACKET SLOTS - AN IN - VITRO STUDY

International Journal of Advanced Research ◽

10.21474/ijar01/10138 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 7 (12) ◽

pp. 144-151

Author(s):

Rahul Aghera ◽

◽

Hina Desai ◽

Kalpesh Patel ◽

Udita A. Thakkar ◽

...

Keyword(s):

In Vitro Study ◽

Frictional Resistance ◽

Vitro Study ◽

Ceramic Bracket

Download Full-text

Enamel loss following ceramic bracket debonding: A quantitative analysis in vitro

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/032414-224.1 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 85 (4) ◽

pp. 651-656 ◽

Cited By ~ 12

Author(s):

Sam N. Suliman ◽

Terry M. Trojan ◽

Daranee Tantbirojn ◽

Antheunis Versluis

Keyword(s):

Standard Deviation ◽

Three Dimensions ◽

Optical Scanner ◽

Polycrystalline Ceramic ◽

Tooth Surfaces ◽

Ceramic Brackets ◽

Successful Removal ◽

Ceramic Bracket ◽

Surface Changes

ABSTRACT Objective: To measure enamel surface changes after ceramic bracket debonding and after cleanup. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted teeth were scanned in three dimensions using an optical scanner (baseline). Two ceramic bracket systems were placed (19 metal-reinforced polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 21 monocrystalline ceramic brackets). Seven days later, brackets were debonded and teeth scanned (post-debond). Adhesive remnants and bracket fragments were recorded. Tooth surfaces were cleaned using a finishing carbide bur and scanned again (post-cleanup). Post-debond and post-cleanup scans were aligned with the baseline, and surface changes were quantified. Results were statistically compared using t-tests and Mann-Whitney tests (α = .05). Results: The depth of enamel loss (mean ± standard deviation) post-debond was 21 ± 8 µm and 33 µm and post-cleanup was 28 ± 14 µm and 18 ± 8 µm (P = .0191); the post-debond remnant thickness was 188 ± 113 µm and 120 ± 37 µm (P = .2381) and post-cleanup was 16 ± 5 µm and 15 µm for polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramic brackets, respectively. The monocrystalline ceramic brackets predominantly left all adhesive on the tooth; the polycrystalline ceramic brackets were more likely to leave bracket fragments attached. Conclusion: Both systems allowed successful removal of the brackets with minimal enamel loss. However, the polycrystalline ceramic brackets left more fragments on the tooth, which complicated cleanup efforts.

Download Full-text

Evaluation of friction in metal, ceramic and self-ligating brackets submitted to sliding mechanics

Revista de Odontologia da UNESP ◽

10.1590/1807-2577.05318 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 47 (4) ◽

pp. 244-248 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Aryadne Cipreste MASCARELO ◽

Ana Paula GODOI ◽

Vivian FURLETTI ◽

William CUSTÓDIO ◽

Heloisa Cristina VALDRIGHI

Keyword(s):

Frictional Force ◽

Frictional Resistance ◽

Base Plate ◽

Test Machine ◽

Acrylic Plate ◽

Different Types ◽

Metal Ceramic ◽

Ceramic Bracket ◽

Sliding Test ◽

Sliding Mechanics

Abstract Objective With the purpose of evaluating the best results for a proposed orthodontic treatment, the aim of this research was to verify the frictional force between archwires and orthodontic brackets in sliding mechanics. Material and method Three different types of brackets were used: conventional metal, self-ligating metal and conventional polycrystalline esthetic type (n=10), totaling 30 brackets and .019 x .025 inches stainless steel rectangular wire. An acrylic plate was used. The wire was fixed to the brackets (conventional metal and conventional polycrystalline esthetic) with esthetic elastomeric ligation. The acrylic plate together with the 019 x 0.025 inches wire fitted to it was attached to the base plate of the Instron 4411 universal test machine so that it was positioned perpendicular to the ground. The bracket was drawn through the archwire segment at a speed of 5 mm / minute for a distance of 5 mm. For each type of bracket, ten tests were performed, with the bracket and archwire set being changed for each repetition. Data were analyzed by one-way Analysis of Variance (p <0.0001) and the Tukey Test (p <0.05). Result Convencional metal and self-ligating brackets presented similar friction (p>0.05), while ceramic bracket presented higher frictional resistance during sliding test (p<0.05). Conclusion It was concluded that the type of bracket influenced the frictional force value obtained, and better results were found when the metal and self-ligating brackets were used. The ceramic bracket presented a higher frictional force value.

Download Full-text

Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

The Angle Orthodontist ◽

10.2319/100507-481.1 ◽

2008 ◽

Vol 78 (6) ◽

pp. 1089-1094 ◽

Cited By ~ 13

Author(s):

Tancan Uysal ◽

Mustafa Ulker ◽

Sabri Ilhan Ramoglu ◽

Huseyin Ertas

Keyword(s):

Stainless Steel ◽

Phosphoric Acid ◽

White Spot Lesions ◽

Group 4 ◽

Ceramic Brackets ◽

Group 3 ◽

Group 2 ◽

Ceramic Bracket ◽

Acid Gel

Abstract Objective: To compare the in vitro microleakage of orthodontic brackets (metal and ceramic) between enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides produced by self-etching primer system with that of conventional acid etching and bonding. Materials and Method: Sixty freshly extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were used in this study. The teeth were separated into four groups of 15 teeth each and received the following treatments: Group 1, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + stainless steel bracket; Group 2, Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TSEP) + stainless steel bracket; Group 3, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + ceramic bracket; Group 4, TSEP + ceramic bracket. After curing, specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The gingival sides in all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed in occlusal sides for both adhesive interfaces. Enamel-adhesive interfaces exhibited more microleakage than did the adhesive-bracket interfaces. Brackets bonded with self-etching primer system showed significantly higher microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface of the gingival side. Conclusions: TSEP causes more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces, which may lead to lower bond strength and/or white-spot lesions.

Download Full-text