scholarly journals Orthodontic Bracket Failure Rates in South-Eastern Nigeria

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rates ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
South Eastern ◽  
Bracket Failure

scholarly journals 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

2018 ◽  
Vol 89 (2) ◽  
pp. 299-305 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thorsten Grünheid ◽  
Brent E. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Tooth Surface ◽  
Controlled Clinical Trial ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Removal Time ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Adhesive Removal ◽  
First Time ◽  
Bracket Failure

ABSTRACT 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.

scholarly journals Comparison of Orthodontic Bracket Debonding Force and Bracket Failure Pattern on Different Teeth In Vivo by a Prototype Debonding Device

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Tamzid Ahmed ◽  
Norma Ab Rahman ◽  
Mohammad Khursheed Alam
Keyword(s):  
Failure Pattern ◽  
Point Scale ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Bracket Failure ◽  
One Way Anova

Objective. To compare the orthodontic bracket debonding force and assess the bracket failure pattern clinically between different teeth by a validated prototype debonding device. Materials and Method. Thirteen (13) patients at the end of comprehensive fixed orthodontic treatment, awaiting for bracket removal, were selected from the list. A total of 260 brackets from the central incisor to the second premolar in both jaws were debonded by a single clinician using a validated prototype debonding device equipped with a force sensitive resistor (FSR). Mean bracket debonding forces were specified to ten (10) groups of teeth. Following debonding, Intraoral microphotographs of the teeth were taken by the same clinician to assess the bracket failure pattern using a 4-point scale of adhesive remnant index (ARI). Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey HSD and independent sample t -test to compare in vivo bracket debonding force, Cohen’s kappa ( κ ), and a nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis test for the reliability and the assessment of ARI scoring. Results. A significant difference ( p < 0.001 ) of mean debonding force was found between different types of teeth in vivo. Clinically, ARI scores were not significantly different ( p = 0.921 ) between different groups, but overall higher scores were predominant. Conclusion. Bracket debonding force should be measured on the same tooth from the same arch as the significant difference of mean debonding force exists between similar teeth of the upper and lower arches. The insignificant bracket failure pattern with higher ARI scores confirms less enamel damage irrespective of tooth types.

Adhesive Pre-coated Brackets, a Comparative Clinical Study

1996 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 325-329 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Ash ◽  
Norman Hay
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Adhesive System ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Orthodontic Appliances ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Fixed Orthodontic Appliances ◽  
Clinical Stages ◽  
Comparative Clinical Study ◽  
Light Curing ◽  
Bracket Failure

The adhesive pre-coated bracket system along with the application of light curing for orthodontic bracket placement were compared with a conventional adhesive system, in a prospective randomized study. Of 38 consecutive patients requiring fixed orthodontic appliances, half were treated with adhesive pre-coated brackets and half with a no-mix adhesive. The timings for the clinical stages involved in bracket placement, were recorded. This also included the time and reliability of bracket identification and orientation. The peri-bracket flash distribution, time taken for clean up at the subsequent visit, the site, and number of bracket failures at the time of bracket placement and during the first 3 months, were recorded. The study showed that althought the time taken to place and care the adhesive pre-coated system was longer than for the no-mix system, this difference was not statistically significant. However, this difference in time was compensated for in the time taken for bracket orientation in the control group and subsequent clean up at the second visit. Both the bracket failure rate and peri-bracket flash scores were reduced in the adhesive pre-coated group as compared with the control and these differences were statistically significantly. Other advantages of the adhesive pre-coated system are reported.

scholarly journals Clinical effect of reducing curing times with high-intensity LED lights

2015 ◽  
Vol 85 (6) ◽  
pp. 1064-1069 ◽  
Author(s):  
Justin D. Ward ◽  
Bethany J. Wolf ◽  
Luis P. Leite ◽  
Jing Zhou
Keyword(s):  
High Intensity ◽  
Light Emitting Diode ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Curing Time ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Posterior Teeth ◽  
Led Light ◽  
Anterior Teeth ◽  
Curing Methods ◽  
Bracket Failure

ABSTRACT Objective:  To evaluate the clinical performance of brackets cured with a high-intensity, light-emitting diode (LED) with a shorter curing time. Materials and Methods:  Thirty-four patients and a total of 680 brackets were examined using a randomized split-mouth design. The maxillary right and mandibular left quadrants were cured for 6 seconds with a high-intensity LED light (3200 mW/cm2) and the maxillary left and mandibular right quadrants were cured for 20 seconds with a standard-intensity LED light (1200 mW/cm2). Alternating patients had the quadrants inverted for the curing protocol. The number and date of each first-time bracket failure was recorded from 199 to 585 days posttreatment. Results:  The bracket failure rate was 1.18% for both curing methods. The proportion of bracket failure was not significantly different between curing methods (P  =  1.000), genders (P  =  1.000), jaws (P  =  .725), sides (P  =  .725), or quadrants (P  =  .547). Posterior teeth exhibited a greater proportion of failures (2.21%) relative to anterior teeth (0.49%), although the difference was not statistically significant (P  =  .065). Conclusions:  No difference was found in bond failure rates between the two curing methods. Both methods showed bond failure rates low enough to be considered clinically sufficient. The high-intensity LED light used with a shorter curing time may be considered an advantage due to the reduced chair time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document