In Vitro Evaluation of a Ceramic Bracket with a Laser-structured Base

Overview

Journal BMC Oral Health

Publisher Biomed Central

Specialty Dentistry

Date 2020 Jan 23

PMID 31964369

Citations 5

Authors

Selma Elekdag-Turk

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was the assessment of shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant characteristics, integrity of the enamel, integrity of Discovery Pearl as well as the integrity of Fascination 2 ceramic brackets following SBS testing.

Methods: Sixty maxillary first premolars were randomly assigned into two groups. These groups were bonded with their respective brackets. The samples underwent thermocycling (1000 cycles), SBS testing and assessment of the residual adhesive. The statistical analyses used were the independent samples t-test, the Weibull analysis and the chi-square test.

Results: The independent samples t-test for the comparison of the mean SBS resulted in significant differences between Fascination 2 (10.50 ± 2.61 MPa) and Pearl (13.01 ± 2.50 MPa) brackets (p = 0.0003). The results of the chi-square test for ARI demonstrated a significant difference (p = 0.000) between the groups. A higher frequency of ARI scores of 2 and 3 for Pearl brackets existed. Enamel damage and bracket fracturing was not observed.

Conclusions: The mean bond strength value, the adhesive remnant characteristics, the integrity of the enamel and the ceramic brackets as well as the Weibull analyses outcomes were highly encouraging during this in vitro screening. The way is paved for an in vivo investigation with the Pearl ceramic bracket.

Citing Articles

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets on Enamel Conditioned With CO2 Laser.

Colin-Ocampo J, Scougall-Vilchis R, Rodriguez-Vilchis L, Medina-Solis C Cureus. 2024; 16(10):e72761.

PMID: 39618621 PMC: 11607858. DOI: 10.7759/cureus.72761.

Effect of Different Liquids and Thermal Aging Procedures on the Shear Bond Strength of APC II, APC Flash-Free, and Conventional Ceramic Brackets: An Study.

Camci H, Canbaz Cevik S Turk J Orthod. 2024; 37(3):140-145.

PMID: 39344786 PMC: 11589170. DOI: 10.4274/TurkJOrthod.2023.2023.5.

Evaluation of stress and displacement of maxillary canine during the single canine retraction in the maxillary first premolar extraction cases- A finite element study.

Zhao W, Lou Y, Yan W Clin Oral Investig. 2024; 28(3):206.

PMID: 38459220 DOI: 10.1007/s00784-024-05590-w.

Bonding Surface Designs in Fixed Orthodontic Attachments.

Sadeghalbanaei L, Noorollahian S, Zarei Z Int J Dent. 2023; 2023:2846879.

PMID: 36726859 PMC: 9886466. DOI: 10.1155/2023/2846879.

The Effect of Brilliant Blue-Based Plaque-Staining Agents on Aesthetic Orthodontic Appliances.

Topolska J, Motyl S, Orlowska A, Borkowski A, Dzialak P, Gronkiewicz K Materials (Basel). 2021; 14(22).

PMID: 34832450 PMC: 8623699. DOI: 10.3390/ma14227050.

References

Ansari M, Agarwal D, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Ansar J, Bhandari R . Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017; 10(11):ZC64-ZC68. PMC: 5198460. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910. View

Abdelkarim A, Jerrold L . Litigation and Legislation. Risk management strategies in orthodontics. Part 1: Clinical considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015; 148(2):345-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.05.011. View

Bishara S, Ostby A, Laffoon J, Warren J . Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod. 2007; 77(2):337-41. DOI: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0337:SBSCOT]2.0.CO;2. View

Waring D, McMullin A, Malik O . Invisible orthodontics part 3: aesthetic orthodontic brackets. Dent Update. 2013; 40(7):555-6, 559-61, 563. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2013.40.7.555. View

Bishara S, Fehr D . Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1998; 3(3):178-88. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80068-0. View

Gittner R, Muller-Hartwich R, Engel S, Jost-Brinkmann P . Shear bond strength and enamel fracture behavior of ceramic brackets Fascination® and Fascination®2. J Orofac Orthop. 2012; 73(1):49-57. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-011-0059-7. View

Bishara S . Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2000; 117(5):595-7. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(00)70212-5. View

Hofmann E, Elsner L, Hirschfelder U, Ebert T, Hanke S . Effects of enamel sealing on shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index : Study of three fluoride-releasing adhesives in combination with metal and ceramic brackets. J Orofac Orthop. 2016; 78(1):1-10. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0065-x. View

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A, Buchner A . G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007; 39(2):175-91. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146. View

10.

Machen D . Legal aspects of orthodontic practice: risk management concepts. Ceramic bracket update. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990; 98(2):185-6. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(06)80018-1. View

11.

Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A, Rahmati-Kamel M . Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)?. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2016; 6(2):142-52. PMC: 4862114. DOI: 10.1016/j.jobcr.2015.08.007. View

12.

Eliades T, Bourauel C . Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2005; 127(4):403-12. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2004.09.015. View

13.

Hajrassie M, Khier S . In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007; 131(3):384-90. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.06.025. View

14.

Fox N, McCabe J, Buckley J . A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1994; 21(1):33-43. DOI: 10.1179/bjo.21.1.33. View

15.

Mundstock K, Sadowsky P, Lacefield W, Bae S . An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1999; 116(6):635-41. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(99)70198-8. View

16.

Retief D . Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974; 1(3):265-84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.1974.tb01438.x. View

17.

Russell J . Aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005; 32(2):146-63. DOI: 10.1179/146531205225021024. View

18.

Hioki M, Shin-Ya A, Nakahara R, Vallittu P, Nakasone Y, Shin-Ya A . Shear bond strength and FEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement--effects of tooth enamel shape and orthodontic bracket base configuration. Dent Mater J. 2008; 26(5):700-7. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.26.700. View

19.

Littlewood S, Mitchell L, Greenwood D . A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. J Orthod. 2001; 28(4):301-5. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/28.4.301. View

20.

Artun J, Bergland S . Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984; 85(4):333-40. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8. View