scholarly journals Does the CO2 laser reduce bond strength in different types of ceramic brackets?

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 55-60
Author(s):  
Fábio Lourenço Romano ◽  
Giovanna Pessoti ◽  
Rodrigo Galo ◽  
Jaciara Miranda Gomes-Silva ◽  
Marília Pacífico Lucisano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Co2 Laser ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Tooth Surfaces ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
One Way Anova

ABSTRACT OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess in vitro the influence of the CO2 laser and of the type of ceramic bracket on the shear bond strength (SBS) to enamel. METHODS: A total of 60 enamel test surfaces were obtained from bovine incisors and randomly assigned to two groups, according to the ceramic bracket used: Allure (A); Transcend (T). Each group was divided into 2 subgroups (n = 15): L, laser (10W, 3s); C, no laser, or control. Twenty-four hours after the bonding protocol using Transbond XT, SBS was tested at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min in a universal testing machine. After debonding, the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was evaluated at 10 x magnification and compared among the groups. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA, Tukey’s, Mann-Whitney’s and Kruskal-Wallis tests (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Mean SBS in MPa were: AL = 0.88 ± 0.84; AC = 12.22 ± 3.45; TL = 12.10 ± 5.11; TC = 17.71 ± 6.16. ARI analysis showed that 73% of the specimens presented the entire adhesive remaining on the tooth surfaces (score 3). TC group presented significantly higher SBS than the other groups. The lased specimens showed significantly lower bond strength than the non-lased groups for both tested brackets. CONCLUSION: CO2 laser irradiation decreased SBS values of the polycrystalline ceramic brackets, mainly Allure.

scholarly journals Comparison of Shear Strength of Metal and Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets Cemented to Zirconia Depending on Surface Treatment: An In Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (02) ◽  
pp. 150-155
Author(s):  
Sibel Cetik ◽  
Thaï Hoang Ha ◽  
Léa Sitri ◽  
Hadrien Duterme ◽  
Viet Pham ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Surface Treatment ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Surface Preparation ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Airborne Particle ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Abstract Objectives Due to the high demand for all-ceramic restorations, monolithic zirconia restorations are nowadays frequently used. With the demand for adult orthodontic treatments, orthodontists need to be mindful of the quality of their brackets bonding to this type of material, as it requires special conditioning. This study aimed to compare different surface treatments of zirconia when bonding metal or ceramic orthodontic brackets. The objectives are to compare the shear bond strength; the amount of adhesive remaining on the surface of the material; the incidence of adhesive, cohesive, and mixed failures; and the occurrence of zirconia fractures. Materials and Methods Forty monolithic blocks of zirconia of a diameter of 10 mm and a length of 10 mm were prepared and randomly divided into two groups (n = 20): metallic or ceramic brackets. Each group was subsequently divided into two subgroups (n = 10) depending on the surface preparation (laser treatment or airborne particle abrasion): SMB (airborne particle abrasion, metal bracket), SCB (airborne particle abrasion, ceramic bracket), LMB (laser; metal bracket), and LCB (laser, ceramic bracket). The samples were tested for shear bond strength using a universal testing machine. The adhesive remnant index and the occurrence of zirconia fractures and different types of failures were assessed by optical and electron microscopy. Statistical Analysis Results were analyzed using analysis of variance. Results The differences were significant between the metallic (SMB, LMB) and ceramic (SCB, LCB) bracket groups with regard to shear bond strength, with respectively 23.29 ± 5.34 MPa, 21.59 ± 4.03 MPa, 20.06 ± 4.05 MPa, and 17.55 ± 3.88 MPa. In terms of surface treatment, no statistical differences were found between the different groups. Conclusion Metal brackets have a greater bond strength than ceramic brackets when cemented to zirconia. The surface treatment of zirconia surface has no influence on the shear bond strength.

scholarly journals Effect of fluoride solutions on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 698-702 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gabriela da Rocha Leódido ◽  
Hianna Oliveira Fernandes ◽  
Mateus Rodrigues Tonetto ◽  
Cristina Dupim Presoto ◽  
Matheus Coêlho Bandéca ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Tooth Surfaces ◽  
Pre Treatment

The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength of brackets after pre-treatment with different fluoride solutions. This study used 48 freshly extracted sound bovine incisors that were randomly assigned to 4 experimental groups (n=12). CG: (control) without treatment; NF: 4 min application of neutral fluoride; APF: application of 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) for 4 min; and SFV: application of 5% sodium fluoride varnish for 6 h. For each group, after surface treatment, prophylaxis of enamel and bracket bonding with Transbond XT composite resin (3M) were performed following the manufacturer's specifications. The shear bond strength was performed with a universal testing machine 24 h after fixing the brackets. The tooth surfaces were analyzed to verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Data were analyzed statistically by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α=0.05). There was statistically significant difference among the groups (p<0.0001). CG and NF groups presented significantly higher bond strength than APF and SFV. There was no significant difference between CG and NF or between APF and SFV (p>0.05). The analysis of ARI scores revealed that most failures occurred at the enamel-resin interface. It may be concluded that the pre-treatment of enamel with 1.23% APF and 5% SFV prior to fixing orthodontic brackets reduces shear bond strength values.

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

2014 ◽  
Vol 85 (4) ◽  
pp. 651-656 ◽  
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.

scholarly journals Do dental bleaching sessions prior to orthodontic treatment change the bond strength of esthetic brackets?

2021 ◽  
Vol 26 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Samara Gasperoni PERCIANO ◽  
Diego Patrik Alves CARNEIRO ◽  
Patricia Rafaela dos SANTOS ◽  
Américo Bortolazzo CORRER ◽  
Silvia Amélia Scudeler VEDOVELLO ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Mechanical Test ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Treatment Change ◽  
Dental Bleaching ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Level Of Significance

ABSTRACT Objective: The aim of this experimental in vitro study was to evaluate whether dental bleaching performed before orthodontic treatment change the shear bond strength (SBS) of monocrystalline and polycrystalline esthetic brackets. Methods: Sixty (60) bovine incisors teeth were used and randomly divided into the following six groups (n=10): SCP (without bleaching/polycrystalline brackets); SCM (without bleaching/monocrystalline brackets); 1CP (one bleaching session/polycrystalline brackets); 1CM (one bleaching session/monocrystalline brackets); 3CP (three bleaching sessions/polycrystalline brackets); and 3CM (three bleaching sessions/monocrystalline brackets). The brackets were bonded seven days after the bleaching sessions. The samples were submitted to the SBS test in a universal testing machine (Instron model 4411) at 1 mm/min crosshead speed. The two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Tukey tests were performed at a 5% level of significance. After the mechanical test, samples were evaluated to determine the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Results: The SBS values were significantly higher for the monocrystalline brackets, when compared with the polycrystalline type (p< 0.0001), and significantly higher with three bleaching sessions than without bleaching (p< 0.0436). The ARI showed predominance of failures between the bracket and resin for all the groups (score 3). Conclusion: Three dental bleaching sessions increased the SBS values. Monocrystalline brackets showed higher SBS values than the polycrystalline type.

scholarly journals Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1078-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir E. Bishara ◽  
Adam Wade Ostby ◽  
John Laffoon ◽  
John J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Failure Patterns ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Failure

Abstract 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 10× 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 (χ2 = 8.73; P = .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.

scholarly journals Pengaruh Kloroform Terhadap Pelarutan Bahan Perekat Yang Menempel Pada Braket Keramik Yang Lepas Dari Gigi

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-18
Author(s):  
Ken Edinata ◽  
Endah Mardiati
Keyword(s):  
Shear Strength ◽  
Orthodontic Treatment ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Wilcoxon Test ◽  
Comparative Approach ◽  
Universal Testing Machine ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

ABSTRAK Kebutuhan braket transparan pada perawatan ortodonti semakin berkembang dengan adanya kebutuhan braket sewarna gigi, terutama wanita yang memerlukan penampilan estetik maksimal. Braket yang lepas dalam perawatan ortodonti perlu direkatkan kembali. Pembersihan landasan braket yang terlepas sehingga dapat direkatkan kembali akan mengurangi biaya yang harus dikeluarkan pasien. Melakukan daur ulang braket haruslah dapatdapat dilakukan tanpa merubah sifat fisik dan ukuran dari braket tersebut. Penelitian ini adalah penelitian eksperimental analitik laboratoris in vitro dengan pendekatan komparatif yang bertujuan untuk melihat perbedaan kuat rekat geser braket keramik yang dibersihkan dengan kloroform selama 20 menit, 40 menit, 60 menit. Sampel yang digunakan dalam penelitian ini adalah 60 buah braket keramik monokristalin  merek Ice Inspire dari Ormco dengan perlekatan mekanik. Pengukuran uji rekat geser menggunakan Instron Universal Testing Machine dan sisa resin menggunakan skor ARI. Analisis statistik dilakukan dengan uji Wilcoxon dan ANOVA. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan terdapat perbedaan bermakna kuat rekat geser braket keramik pasca rekat yang dibersihkan dengan kloroform selama 20 menit, 40 menit, 60 menit dan braket keramik pascarekat yang baru. Simpulan dari penelitian ini bahwa Terdapat perbedaan kuat rekat geser braket keramik yang dibersihkan dengan kloroform selama 20 menit, 40 menit, 60 menit dengan braket keramik yang baru, Semakin lama waktu pembersihan braket keramik dengan kloroform, sisa resin adhesif akan semakin bersih dan mempunyai kuat rekat geser yang lebih tinggi. Terdapat perbedaan sisa resin adesif antara braket keramik pasca rekat yang dibersihkan dengan kloroform yang dilepas kembali dengan braket keramik pasca rekat yang baru.   Kata Kunci : perbedaan kuat rekat geser, kloroform, kuat rekat geser, ARI, braket keramik.                                                                                                    ABSTRACT Transparant bracket needs in orthodontic treatment is become huge caused the needs of tranlucent bracket , especially women who require maximum aesthetic appearance. Debonding bracket in orthodontic treatment need  to reattached.  By Cleaning mesh of bracket so it can be reattached to reduce patient costs . Recycling bracket must can done without changing the physical properties and the size of bracket. This study is an experimental study in vitro analytical comparative approach that aims to see the difference shear strength adhesion to ceramic brackets were cleaned with chloroform for 20 minutes , 40 minutes , 60 minutes . The sample used in this study were 60 pieces of ceramic bracket monokristalin from Ormco Inspire Ice with mechanical retention. Measurement of shear strength test using the Instron Universal Testing Machine and the rest of the resin using ARI scores . Statistical analysis was used  with Wilcoxon test and ANOVA . The results showed there were significant differences in the bracket shear strength rebonding ceramic bracket, which cleaned with chloroform for 20 minutes , 40 minutes , 60 minutes and new rebonding ceramic bracket. Conclusions from this research that There is a difference in the shear strength ceramic brackets  which cleaned using chloroform for 20 minutes , 40 minutes , 60 minutes and with a new ceramic bracket , the longer time cleaning ceramic bracket with chloroform, the rest of the adhesive resin will be clean and have strong adhesion higher shear. There are differences between the residual resin adhesive after adhesive ceramic bracket cleaned with chloroform is released back and the ceramic new bracket rebonding. Key words : 

scholarly journals Shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets using color change adhesives

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 76-80 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aisha de Souza Gomes Stumpf ◽  
Carlos Bergmann ◽  
José Renato Prietsch ◽  
Juliane Vicenzi
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Shear Bond Strength ◽  
Color Change ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Bonding Material ◽  
Universal Testing ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
The Mean

OBJECTIVE: To determine the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets using color change adhesives that are supposed to aid in removing excess of bonding material and compare them to a traditional adhesive. METHODS: Ninety metallic and ninety ceramic brackets were bonded to bovine incisors using two color change adhesives and a regular one. A tensile stress was applied by a universal testing machine. The teeth were observed in a microscope after debonding in order to determine the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). RESULTS: The statistical analysis (ANOVA, Tukey, and Kruskall-Wallis tests) demonstrated that the mean bond strength presented no difference when metallic and ceramic brackets were compared but the bond resistance values were significantly different for the three adhesives used. The most common ARI outcome was the entire adhesive remaining on the enamel. CONCLUSIONS: The bond strength was similar for metallic and ceramic brackets when the same adhesive system was used. ARI scores demonstrated that bonding with these adhesives is safe even when ceramic brackets were used. On the other hand, bond strength was too low for orthodontic purposes when Ortho Lite Cure was used.

scholarly journals Prototype to measure bracket debonding force in vivo

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (1) ◽  
pp. 82-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jéssika Lagni Tonus ◽  
Fernanda Borguetti Manfroi ◽  
Gilberto Antonio Borges ◽  
Eduardo Correa Grigolo ◽  
Sérgio Helegda ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Strain Gauge ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Orthodontic Brackets ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Student’S T ◽  
Group 1

ABSTRACT Introduction: Material biodegradation that occurs in the mouth may interfere in the bonding strength between the bracket and the enamel, causing lower bond strength values in vivo, in comparison with in vitro studies. Objective: To develop a prototype to measure bracket debonding force in vivo and to evaluate, in vitro, the bond strength obtained with the prototype. Methods: A original plier (3M Unitek) was modified by adding one strain gauge directly connected to its claw. An electronic circuit performed the reading of the strain gauge, and the software installed in a computer recorded the values of the bracket debonding force, in kgf. Orthodontic brackets were bonded to the facial surface of 30 bovine incisors with adhesive materials. In Group 1 (n = 15), debonding was carried out with the prototype, while tensile bond strength testing was performed in Group 2 (n = 15). A universal testing machine was used for the second group. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was recorded. Results: According to Student’s t test (α = 0.05), Group 1 (2.96 MPa) and Group 2 (3.08 MPa) were not significantly different. ARI score of 3 was predominant in the two groups. Conclusion: The prototype proved to be reliable for obtaining in vivo bond strength values for orthodontic brackets.

An Easily Removable Ceramic Bracket?

1992 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 305-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel A. Fox ◽  
John F. McCabe
Keyword(s):  
Bond Strength ◽  
Independent Data ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

The use of ceramic brackets in fixed appliance orthodontics has highlighted several problems, amongst which are the problems of enamel damage and possible trauma to the patient during debonding. A ceramic bracket has recently been developed with a polycarbonate laminated base (Ceramaflex®) claiming to make debond much easier, although there are no independent data to substantiate this claim. The in-vitro bond strength of these ceramic brackets to enamel was tested and compared with metal standard Edgewise brackets. The bond produced with the Ceramaflex® bracket was similar in magnitude, but less reliable. No fracture of the bracket or damage to enamel was seen during debonding. Debonding of these brackets was easy to carry out, but it is possible that more debonds may occur during treatment than with the use of metal brackets.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document