Effect of different bonding techniques on the debonding characteristics of ceramic brackets (original) (raw)
Related papers
Bond strength and debonding characteristics of a new ceramic bracket
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 2005
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°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 Ͼ .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. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;128:761-5)
Evaluation of Different Techniques for Debonding of Ceramic Brackets (An in Vitro Study)
Egyptian Orthodontic Journal, 2022
Objective: To compare different techniques for debonding of ceramic brackets in terms of adhesive remnant index (ARI). Material and methods: A sample of 100 extracted human premolars were randomly and equally allocated into 5 groups of 20. Thereafter, monocrystalline ceramic brackets were bonded to teeth using light cure composite resin. Among the 5 groups; group I: served as control, group II: chemical assisted debonding using peppermint oil, group III: ultrasonic assisted debonding, group IV: diode laser assisted debonding, and group V: Er: YAG laser assisted debonding. Brackets were then debonded using a universal testing machine, followed by ARI assessment. Results: A statistically significant higher ARI scores was found solely in Er:YAG laser assisted debonding. Yet, no significant difference was found with chemical, ultrasonic, and diode laser assisted debonding. Conclusion: Er:YAG laser could be effective for debonding of ceramic brackets. Hence, this method might be recommended to alleviate enamel damage.
Journal of Contemporary Dentistry, 2018
Introduction: Enamel integrity gets affected by the presence of micro-cracks in it and they can further create problems like stains and the accumulation of plaque on the fractured surfaces. Avoiding such iatrogenic damage to the enamel surface has been a constant challenge even with the use of metal brackets. Creating a fracture line in the base of the bracket leads to the formation of a 'weak zone'. This allows the bracket to collapse in a mesiodistal direction when debonding forces are applied rather than shattering the bracket into tiny multiple pieces. Thus, removal of the bracket having such a 'weak zone' created by making a groove in it before bracket removal arguably leaves the major amount of resin on the tooth and therefore causes less stress on enamel. This study plans to evaluate the expected beneficial effect of 'scoring' the base of the ceramic bracket before bracket removal. Aim: To evaluate and compare the occurrence of micro-cracks in enamel observed before bonding and after debonding of various types of ceramic brackets. Results: The difference between scored monocrystalline ceramic brackets and unscored monocrystalline ceramic brackets of both the AO and Ormco groups is not significant statistically (p = 0.096). There is a significant difference in scoring of ARI and enamel micro-cracks development. The difference of length and width between the groups (A and B) is statistically insignificant. Conclusion: Post debonding, there was no difference significantly in the length or width of enamel micro-cracks between AO monocrystalline ceramic brackets (group A) and Ormco monocrystalline ceramic brackets (group B).
Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014
Debonding procedure is time consuming and damaging to the enamel if performed with improper technique. Various debonding methods include: the conventional methods that use pliers or wrenches, an ultrasonic method, electrothermal devices, air pressure impulse devices, diamond burs to grind the brackets off the tooth surface and lasers. Among all these methods, using debonding pliers is most convenient and effective method but has been reported to cause damage to the teeth. Recently, a New Debonding Instrument designed specifically for ceramic and composite brackets has been introduced. As this is a new instrument, little information is available on efficacy of this instrument. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the debonding characteristics of both "the conventional debonding Pliers" and "the New debonding instrument" when removing ceramic, composite and metallic brackets. One Hundred Thirty eight extracted maxillary premolar teeth were collected and divide...
Effect of Ceramic Surface Treatment and Adhesive Systems on Bond Strength of Metallic Brackets
International Journal of Dentistry, 2020
Objective. This study evaluated the effect of ceramic surface treatments on bond strength of metal brackets to machinable ceramics and veneering porcelain using different adhesive resins. Materials and methods. Machined ceramic specimens (10 × 10 × 2 mm) were prepared from Vitablocs mark II (Vita) and IPS e.max® CAD (Ivoclar). Layered porcelain fused to metal (IPS d.Sign®, Ivoclar) was used to fabricate PFM specimens (n = 60/group). Half of specimens were etched (9.6% HF, 15 sec), and the rest were nonetched. Three resin bonding systems were used for attaching metal brackets (Victory series™ APC II, 3M) to each group (n = 10): Transbond™ XT (3M), Light Bond™ (Reliance), or Blugloo™ (Ormco), all cured with LED curing unit (Bluephase G1600, Vivadent) for 50 s each. Specimens were immersed in deionized water at 37°C for 24 hours prior to shear bond testing (Instron) at crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. Debond surface of ceramic and bracket base was examined for failure mode (FM), Ceramic ...
Failure mode analysis of ceramic brackets bonded to enamel
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 1993
The purpose of this study was to evaluate in vitro the failure pattern of ceramic brackets bonded to enamel with a light-cured orthodontic adhesive. Five types of ceramic brackets and 125 incisors were used in the study. The brackets were bonded onto enamel with a light-cured orthodontic adhesive. After 1 week storage and thermal cycling, the samples were debonded by one operator according to the individual technique for each bracket group proposed by each manufacturer. The fracture surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope to reveal the type of failures. The effect of the debonding procedure on enamel structure was significantly affected by the various bonding mechanisms of the bracket bases. Cohesive enamel fractures were detected from brackets that provided a bonding mechanism of micromechanical retention and chemical adhesion. The brackets that combined mechanical retention and chemical adhesion, presented both cohesive resin fractures and fractures located at the bracket resin or the resin enamel interface. The higher frequency of cohesive bracket fractures was obtained from a monocrystalline bracket. (AM J ORTHOD DEN'I 'OFAC ORTHOP 1993;104:21-6.)
Evaluation of shear bond strength of different treatments of ceramic bracket surfaces
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, 2012
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the bonding strength of the ceramic bracket and composite resin restoration interface, using four types of treatment on the base of the bracket. METHODOLOGY: 48 photoactivated composite resin discs were used (FiltekTM Z250) contained in specimens and divided into 4 groups of 12 specimens for each group according to the type of treatment performed on the base of the brackets. Once the brackets were bonded, the specimens were subjected to shear stress carried out in a universal testing machine (MTS: 810 Material Test System) calibrated with a fixed speed of 0.5 mm / minute. The values obtained were recorded and compared by means of appropriate statistical tests - analysis of variance and then Tukey's test. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: The surfaces of ceramic brackets conditioned with 10% hydrofluoric acid for 1 minute, followed by aluminum oxide blasting, 50µ, after silane application and primer application, was considered the best method to prepare surfaces of ...
BMC Oral Health, 2022
Background Risk of enamel damage that often accompanies ceramic brackets debonding raises the demand of finding an optimal method for debonding of them without adverse effects. Different techniques were proposed in an attempt to facilitate their debonding. Comparison of these techniques is crucial. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare different techniques for debonding of ceramic brackets in terms of shear bond strength and adhesive remnant index. Materials and methods A total of 100 extracted premolars were randomly allocated into 5 groups. Ceramic brackets were then bonded to teeth using light cure composite resin. Among test groups; group I: served as control, group II: chemical aided debonding via peppermint oil, group III: ultrasonic aided debonding, group IV: diode laser aided debonding, and group V: Er:YAG laser aided debonding. Brackets were shear tested using universal testing machine followed by ARI assessment and evaluation of enamel microstructure was perfor...
Bonding Polycarbonate Brackets to Ceramic: Effects of Substrate Treatment on Bond Strength.
This study evaluated the effects of 5 different surface conditioning methods on the bond strength of polycarbonate brackets bonded to ceramic surfaces with resin based cement. Six disc-shaped ceramic specimens (feldspathic porcelain) with glazed surfaces were used for each group. The specimens were randomly assigned to 1 of the following treatment conditions of the ceramic surface: (1) orthophosphoric acid ϩ primer ϩ bonding agent, (2) hydrofluoric acid gel ϩ primer ϩ bonding agent, (3) tribochemical silica coating (silicon dioxide, 30m) ϩ silane, (4) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30m) ϩ silane, and (5) airborne particle abrasion (aluminum trioxide, 30m) ϩ silane ϩ bonding agent. Brackets were bonded to the conditioned ceramic specimens with a light-polymerized resin composite. All specimens were stored in water for 1 week at 37°C and then thermocycled (1000 cycles, 5°C to 55°C, 30 seconds). The shear bond strength values were measured on a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Brackets treated with silica coating with silanization had significantly greater bond strength values (13.6 MPa, P ϭ .01) than brackets treated with orthophosphoric acid (8.5 MPa). There was no significant difference (P ϭ .97) between the bond strengths obtained after airborne abrasion with aluminium trioxide particles followed by silanization (12 MPa) and hydrofluoric acid application (11.2 MPa) (ANOVA and Tukey test). Although brackets conditioned with orthophosphoric acid exhibited only adhesive failures of the luting cement from the ceramic surface, other conditioning methods showed mixed types of failures. Airborne particle abrasion with aluminium trioxide or silica coating followed by silanization gave the most favorable bond strengths. The types of failures observed after debonding indicated that the critical parameter was the strength of the adhesive joint of the luting cement to both the bracket and the ceramic. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;126:220-7)