Literature DB >> 24713563

Shear bond resistance and enamel surface comparison after the bonding and debonding of ceramic and metallic brackets.

José Maurício da Rocha, Marco Abdo Gravina, Marcio José da Silva Campos, Cátia Cardoso Abdo Quintão, Carlos Nelson Elias, Robert Willer Farinazzo Vitral.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate, in vitro, the shear bond strength presented by three brands of polycrystalline ceramic brackets and one brand of metallic bracket; verify the adhesive remnant index (ARI) after the tests, and analyze, through scanning electron microscopy (SEM) the enamel surface topography after debonding, detecting the release of mineral particles.
METHODS: Sixty bovine lower incisors were used. Three ceramic brackets (Allure®, InVu®, and Clarity®) and one metallic bracket (Geneus®) were bonded with Transbond XT®. Kruskal-Wallis's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of shear bond and ARI. Mann Whitney's test was performed to compare the pairs of brackets in relation to their ARI. Brown-Forsythe's test (significance level set at 5%) was applied to the results of enamel chemical composition. Comparisons between groups were made with Games-Howell's and the Post-hoc tests.
RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was observed in relation to the shear bond strength loads. Clarity® brackets were the most affected in relation to the surface topography and to the release of mineral particles of enamel (calcium ions).
CONCLUSIONS: With regard to the ARI, there was a prevalence of score 4 (40.4%). As for enamel surface topography, the Geneus® bracket was the only one which did not show superficial tissue loss. The InVu® and Clarity® ones showed cohesive fractures in 33.3% and the Allure® in 50%, the latter being the one that presented most fractures during removal.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Orthodontic brackets; Scanning electron microscopy; Shear bond strength; Tooth enamel

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24713563      PMCID: PMC4299420          DOI: 10.1590/2176-9451.19.1.077-085.oar

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod        ISSN: 2176-9451


  14 in total

1.  Frictional properties of metal and ceramic brackets.

Authors:  H M Omana; R N Moore; M D Bagby
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1992-07

2.  A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces.

Authors:  M G BUONOCORE
Journal:  J Dent Res       Date:  1955-12       Impact factor: 6.116

3.  Debonding ceramic brackets: effects on enamel.

Authors:  T B Redd; P K Shivapuja
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1991-08

Review 4.  Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review.

Authors:  A Karamouzos; A E Athanasiou; M A Papadopoulos
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 2.650

5.  Stresses developed during clinical debonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets.

Authors:  T R Katona
Journal:  Angle Orthod       Date:  1997       Impact factor: 2.079

6.  Ceramic brackets.

Authors:  M L Swartz
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1988-02

7.  Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment.

Authors:  J Artun; S Bergland
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1984-04

8.  The effects of debonding on the enamel surface.

Authors:  C G Bennett; C Shen; J M Waldron
Journal:  J Clin Orthod       Date:  1984-05

9.  Clinical treatment with bonded plastic attachments.

Authors:  G V Newman
Journal:  Am J Orthod       Date:  1971-12

10.  Effects of different debonding techniques on the debonding forces and failure modes of ceramic brackets in simulated clinical set-ups.

Authors:  Hsing-Yu Chen; Ming-Zen Su; Hsin-Fu Frank Chang; Yi-Jane Chen; Won-Hong Lan; Chun-Pin Lin
Journal:  Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.650

View more
  8 in total

1.  Effects of Ozone and Prophylactic Antimicrobial Applications on Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets.

Authors:  Özer Alkan; Burcu Oktay Çöven; Betül Özçopur; Fatih Kazancı; Yeşim Kaya; Cihan Aydoğan; Gürcan Eskitaşçıoğlu
Journal:  Turk J Orthod       Date:  2017-12-01

2.  Prototype to measure bracket debonding force in vivo.

Authors:  Jéssika Lagni Tonus; Fernanda Borguetti Manfroi; Gilberto Antonio Borges; Eduardo Correa Grigolo; Sérgio Helegda; Ana Maria Spohr
Journal:  Dental Press J Orthod       Date:  2017-02

3.  Variations in enamel damage after debonding of two different bracket base designs: An in vitro study.

Authors:  Mohammad Hossein Ahangar Atashi; Amir Hooman Sadr Haghighi; Parastou Nastarin; Sina Ahangar Atashi
Journal:  J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects       Date:  2018-03-14

4.  A Novel Etchant System for Orthodontic Bracket Bonding.

Authors:  A I Ibrahim; V P Thompson; S Deb
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2019-07-03       Impact factor: 4.379

5.  A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study.

Authors:  Tomasz Ogiński; Beata Kawala; Marcin Mikulewicz; Joanna Antoszewska-Smith
Journal:  Biomed Res Int       Date:  2020-01-10       Impact factor: 3.411

6.  Shear Bond Strength and Bracket Base Morphology of New and Rebonded Orthodontic Ceramic Brackets.

Authors:  Mihai Urichianu; Steven Makowka; David Covell; Stephen Warunek; Thikriat Al-Jewair
Journal:  Materials (Basel)       Date:  2022-03-02       Impact factor: 3.623

7.  Evaluation of surface roughness of enamel after various bonding and clean-up procedures on enamel bonded with three different bonding agents: An in-vitro study.

Authors:  Amit Goel; Atul Singh; Tarun Gupta; Ramandeep-Singh Gambhir
Journal:  J Clin Exp Dent       Date:  2017-05-01

8.  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

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.