Mohd Younus Ansari1, Deepak K Agarwal2, Ankur Gupta3, Preeti Bhattacharya4, Juhi Ansar5, Ravi Bhandari5. 1. Postgraduate Student, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India . 2. Professor and HOD, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India . 3. Reader, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India . 4. Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India . 5. Senior Lecturer, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Institute of Dental Sciences , Bareilly, Uttar Pradesh, India .
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets with different base design is essential as it affects bond strength to enamel. AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effect of base designs of different ceramic brackets on SBS, and to determine the fracture site after debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups of ceramic brackets and one group of metal brackets with different base designs were used. Adhesive precoated base of Clarity Advanced (APC Flash-free) (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), microcrystalline base of Clarity Advanced (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), polymer mesh base of InVu (TP Orthodontics, Inc., La Porte, IN, United States), patented bead ball base of Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, California), and a mechanical mesh base of Gemini Metal bracket (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California). Ten brackets of each type were bonded to 50 maxillary premolars with Transbond XT (Unitek/3M). Samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine (Model 3382; Instron Corp., Canton, Massachusetts, USA) at a cross head speed of 1mm/minute with the help of a chisel. The debonded interface was recorded and analyzed to determine the predominant bond failure site under an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope) at 10X magnification. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare SBS. Tukey's significant differences tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were compared by chi-square test. RESULTS: Mean SBS of microcrystalline base (27.26±1.73), was the highest followed by bead ball base (23.45±5.09), adhesive precoated base (20.13±5.20), polymer mesh base (17.54±1.91), and mechanical mesh base (17.50±2.41) the least. Comparing the frequency (%) of ARI Score among the groups, chi-square test showed significantly different ARI scores among the groups (χ2 = 34.07, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Different base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence SBS to enamel and all were clinically acceptable.
INTRODUCTION: Knowledge about the Shear Bond Strength (SBS) of ceramic brackets with different base design is essential as it affects bond strength to enamel. AIM: The aim of the present study was to evaluate and compare the effect of base designs of different ceramic brackets on SBS, and to determine the fracture site after debonding. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Four groups of ceramic brackets and one group of metal brackets with different base designs were used. Adhesive precoated base of Clarity Advanced (APC Flash-free) (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), microcrystalline base of Clarity Advanced (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California), polymer mesh base of InVu (TP Orthodontics, Inc., La Porte, IN, United States), patented bead ball base of Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, California), and a mechanical mesh base of Gemini Metal bracket (Unitek/3M, Monrovia, California). Ten brackets of each type were bonded to 50 maxillary premolars with Transbond XT (Unitek/3M). Samples were stored in distilled water at room temperature for 24 hours and subsequently tested in shear mode on a universal testing machine (Model 3382; Instron Corp., Canton, Massachusetts, USA) at a cross head speed of 1mm/minute with the help of a chisel. The debonded interface was recorded and analyzed to determine the predominant bond failure site under an optical microscope (Stereomicroscope) at 10X magnification. One way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare SBS. Tukey's significant differences tests were used for post-hoc comparisons. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) scores were compared by chi-square test. RESULTS: Mean SBS of microcrystalline base (27.26±1.73), was the highest followed by bead ball base (23.45±5.09), adhesive precoated base (20.13±5.20), polymer mesh base (17.54±1.91), and mechanical mesh base (17.50±2.41) the least. Comparing the frequency (%) of ARI Score among the groups, chi-square test showed significantly different ARI scores among the groups (χ2 = 34.07, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: Different base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence SBS to enamel and all were clinically acceptable.
Authors: Verónica García-Sanz; Vanessa Paredes-Gallardo; Carlos Bellot-Arcís; Omel Mendoza-Yero; Carlos Doñate-Buendía; Javier Montero; Alberto Albaladejo Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-10-19 Impact factor: 3.240
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
Authors: Andrea Pacifici; Luigi Laino; Marco Gargari; Federico Guzzo; Andrea Velandia Luz; Antonella Polimeni; Luciano Pacifici Journal: Int J Med Sci Date: 2018-03-08 Impact factor: 3.738
Authors: Carlos González-Serrano; Eugenia Baena; María-Victoria Fuentes; Alberto Albaladejo; Manuel Míguez-Contreras; Manuel O Lagravère; Laura Ceballos Journal: J Clin Exp Dent Date: 2019-02-01