INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength of a new collapsible monocrystalline bracket (Inspire, Ormco, Orange, Calif) and compare it with another collapsible ceramic bracket (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and a metal bracket; to examine the modes of failure after shear bond strength testing; and to observe the tooth surface after debonding the ceramic brackets with pliers. METHODS: One hundred extracted human premolars were selected for bonding. Three types of brackets and 2 orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek; and Enlight, Ormco) were used. After bonding, all samples were placed in a distilled water bath at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The shear bond strength of 60 samples was measured, and the remaining 40 samples with ceramic brackets were debonded with pliers. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in bond strengths among the different combinations of brackets and adhesives were found (P > .05). The mode of failure after debonding by either shear bond strength testing or with pliers was predominantly at the bracket/adhesive interface in all groups. Enamel and bracket fractures were noted in 2 and 5 of 20 samples for Inspire, and 1 and 0 of 20 samples for Clarity after debonding with pliers. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength and mode of failure of Inspire were similar to those of Clarity, but the risk of bracket fracture after debonding for Inspire was greater.
INTRODUCTION: The purposes of this study were to evaluate the shear bond strength of a new collapsible monocrystalline bracket (Inspire, Ormco, Orange, Calif) and compare it with another collapsible ceramic bracket (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and a metal bracket; to examine the modes of failure after shear bond strength testing; and to observe the tooth surface after debonding the ceramic brackets with pliers. METHODS: One hundred extracted human premolars were selected for bonding. Three types of brackets and 2 orthodontic adhesives (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek; and Enlight, Ormco) were used. After bonding, all samples were placed in a distilled water bath at 37 degrees C for 24 hours. The shear bond strength of 60 samples was measured, and the remaining 40 samples with ceramic brackets were debonded with pliers. RESULTS: No statistically significant differences in bond strengths among the different combinations of brackets and adhesives were found (P > .05). The mode of failure after debonding by either shear bond strength testing or with pliers was predominantly at the bracket/adhesive interface in all groups. Enamel and bracket fractures were noted in 2 and 5 of 20 samples for Inspire, and 1 and 0 of 20 samples for Clarity after debonding with pliers. CONCLUSIONS: Bond strength and mode of failure of Inspire were similar to those of Clarity, but the risk of bracket fracture after debonding for Inspire was greater.