Literature DB >> 19164413

Debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different conditioning methods.

Selma Elekdag-Turk1, Devrim Isci, Nurhat Ozkalayci, Tamer Turk.   

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and debonding characteristics of a polymer mesh base ceramic bracket bonded with two different surface conditioning methods. InVu Readi-Base ceramic brackets were bonded to 100 human premolars with different etching protocols. With conventional method (CM), the teeth were etched with 37 per cent phosphoric acid for 30 seconds, while Transbond Plus self-etching primer (SEP) was applied as recommended by the manufacturer. SBS testing was performed on 25 samples of each group while the remaining 25 samples of each group were subjected to plier or machine debonding after thermocycling for 1000 cycles. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was used to determine the amount of composite resin on the enamel. Statistical analysis included Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests and Weibull analysis. No significant difference was observed between the CM (9.22 MPa) and SEP (9.04 MPa) groups (P=0.684). ARI scores of machine and plier debonding for both groups showed a significant difference (P <or= 0.0001). Debonding with pliers showed a pronounced number of ARI scores of 3 for both groups. Polymer mesh base fractures were observed for both groups. Nevertheless, no significant differences were observed between the groups (chi(2)=4.304, P=0.230). The results of this in vitro study are encouraging, since, for the majority of specimens, all of the residual adhesive remained on the enamel surface. This type of debonding pattern has the advantage of protecting the enamel surface. Nevertheless, the base fractures at the ceramic/polymer interface might necessitate modifications in debonding strategy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19164413     DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjn067

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Orthod        ISSN: 0141-5387            Impact factor:   3.075


  5 in total

1.  Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system.

Authors:  Da-Young Kang; Sung-Hwan Choi; Jung-Yul Cha; Chung-Ju Hwang
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 2.079

2.  What is the best method for debonding metallic brackets from the patient's perspective?

Authors:  Matheus Melo Pithon; Daniel Santos Fonseca Figueiredo; Dauro Douglas Oliveira; Raildo da Silva Coqueiro
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2015-06-17       Impact factor: 2.750

3.  Physical and chemical mechanisms involved in adhesion of orthodontic bonding composites: in vitro evaluations.

Authors:  R Condò; G Mampieri; A Cioffi; M E Cataldi; I Frustaci; A Giancotti; V Campanella; V Mussi; A Convertino; L Maiolo; G Pasquantonio
Journal:  BMC Oral Health       Date:  2021-07-16       Impact factor: 2.757

4.  Clinical performance of uncoated and precoated polymer mesh base ceramic brackets.

Authors:  Hüdanur Yılmaz Née Huda Abulkbash; Selma Elekdag-Türk
Journal:  Prog Orthod       Date:  2019-01-28       Impact factor: 2.750

5.  Pain and removal force associated with bracket debonding: a clinical study.

Authors:  Narumi Nakada; Yasuki Uchida; Mizuki Inaba; Ryo Kaetsu; Natsuo Shimizu; Yasuhiro Namura; Mitsuru Motoyoshi
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2021-07-23       Impact factor: 2.698

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.