Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Oral Health 1/2020

Open Access 01-12-2020 | Laser | Research article

In vitro evaluation of a ceramic bracket with a laser-structured base

Author: Selma Elekdag-Türk

Published in: BMC Oral Health | Issue 1/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

The purpose of this study was the assessment of shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant characteristics, integrity of the enamel, integrity of Discovery Pearl as well as the integrity of Fascination 2 ceramic brackets following SBS testing.

Methods

Sixty maxillary first premolars were randomly assigned into two groups. These groups were bonded with their respective brackets. The samples underwent thermocycling (1000 cycles), SBS testing and assessment of the residual adhesive. The statistical analyses used were the independent samples t-test, the Weibull analysis and the chi-square test.

Results

The independent samples t-test for the comparison of the mean SBS resulted in significant differences between Fascination 2 (10.50 ± 2.61 MPa) and Pearl (13.01 ± 2.50 MPa) brackets (p = 0.0003). The results of the chi-square test for ARI demonstrated a significant difference (p = 0.000) between the groups. A higher frequency of ARI scores of 2 and 3 for Pearl brackets existed. Enamel damage and bracket fracturing was not observed.

Conclusions

The mean bond strength value, the adhesive remnant characteristics, the integrity of the enamel and the ceramic brackets as well as the Weibull analyses outcomes were highly encouraging during this in vitro screening. The way is paved for an in vivo investigation with the Pearl ceramic bracket.
Literature
2.
go back to reference Russell JS. Current products and practice aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005;32:146–63.CrossRef Russell JS. Current products and practice aesthetic orthodontic brackets. J Orthod. 2005;32:146–63.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Waring D, McMullin A, Malik OH. Invisible orthodontics part 3: aesthetic orthodontic brackets. Dent Update. 2013;40:555–63.CrossRef Waring D, McMullin A, Malik OH. Invisible orthodontics part 3: aesthetic orthodontic brackets. Dent Update. 2013;40:555–63.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A, Rahmati-Kamel M. Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)? J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2016;6:142–52.CrossRef Poorsattar-Bejeh Mir A, Rahmati-Kamel M. Should the orthodontic brackets always be removed prior to magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)? J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2016;6:142–52.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gautam P, Valiathan A. Ceramic brackets: in search of an ideal! Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007;20:122–6. Gautam P, Valiathan A. Ceramic brackets: in search of an ideal! Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007;20:122–6.
6.
go back to reference Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1997;3:178–88.CrossRef Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod. 1997;3:178–88.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Schechter G, Caputo AA, Chaconas SJ. The effect of adhesive layer thickness on retention of direct bonded brackets. J Dent Res. 1980;59 abstract no.72. Schechter G, Caputo AA, Chaconas SJ. The effect of adhesive layer thickness on retention of direct bonded brackets. J Dent Res. 1980;59 abstract no.72.
8.
go back to reference Gittner R, Müller-Hartwich R, Engel S, Jost-Brinkmann P-G. Shear bond strength and enamel fracture behavior of ceramic brackets fascination® and fascination®2. J Orofac Orthop. 2012;73:49–57.CrossRef Gittner R, Müller-Hartwich R, Engel S, Jost-Brinkmann P-G. Shear bond strength and enamel fracture behavior of ceramic brackets fascination® and fascination®2. J Orofac Orthop. 2012;73:49–57.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.CrossRef Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, Buchner A. G*power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Ansar J, Bhandari R. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: comparative in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZC64–8.PubMedPubMedCentral Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, Bhattacharya P, Ansar J, Bhandari R. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: comparative in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZC64–8.PubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1994;21:33–43.CrossRef Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod. 1994;21:33–43.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference International Organization for Standardization (ISO/TS 11405) Dental materials testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva, Switzerland. 2015. International Organization for Standardization (ISO/TS 11405) Dental materials testing of adhesion to tooth structure. Geneva, Switzerland. 2015.
13.
go back to reference Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1884;85:333–40.CrossRef Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1884;85:333–40.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Bishara SE. Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117:595–7.CrossRef Bishara SE. Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2000;117:595–7.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Machen DE. Legal aspects of orthodontic practice: risk management concepts. Ceramic bracket update. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;98:185–6.CrossRef Machen DE. Legal aspects of orthodontic practice: risk management concepts. Ceramic bracket update. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1990;98:185–6.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1963;67:382–91.CrossRef Buonocore MG. Principles of adhesive retention and adhesive restorative materials. J Am Dent Assoc. 1963;67:382–91.CrossRef
17.
go back to reference Hioki M, Shin-ya A, Nakahara R, Vallittu PK, Nakasone Y, Shin-ya A. Shear bond strength and FEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement – effects of tooth enamel shape and orthodontic bracket base configuration. Dent Mater J. 2007;26:700–7.CrossRef Hioki M, Shin-ya A, Nakahara R, Vallittu PK, Nakasone Y, Shin-ya A. Shear bond strength and FEM of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement – effects of tooth enamel shape and orthodontic bracket base configuration. Dent Mater J. 2007;26:700–7.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8.CrossRef Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod. 1975;2:171–8.CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127:403–12.CrossRef Eliades T, Bourauel C. Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2005;127:403–12.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Jähnig A, Henkel S. Glass ionomer cements as orthodontic bracket adhesives. An in vitro study with 4 glass ionomer cements (GIC) and 2 conventional bracket adhesives as the comparative group. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990;51:204–7.CrossRef Jähnig A, Henkel S. Glass ionomer cements as orthodontic bracket adhesives. An in vitro study with 4 glass ionomer cements (GIC) and 2 conventional bracket adhesives as the comparative group. Fortschr Kieferorthop. 1990;51:204–7.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Hajrassie MKA, Khier SE. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:384–9.CrossRef Hajrassie MKA, Khier SE. In-vivo and in-vitro comparison of bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel and debonded at various times. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2007;131:384–9.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Abdelkarim A, Jerrold L. Risk management strategies in orthodontics. Part 1: clinical considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;148:345–9.CrossRef Abdelkarim A, Jerrold L. Risk management strategies in orthodontics. Part 1: clinical considerations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2015;148:345–9.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974;1:265–84.CrossRef Retief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil. 1974;1:265–84.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, Warren J. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:337–41.CrossRef Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, Warren J. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod. 2007;77:337–41.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Hofmann E, Elsner L, Hirschfelder U, Ebert T, Hanke S. Effects of enamel sealing on shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78:1–10.CrossRef Hofmann E, Elsner L, Hirschfelder U, Ebert T, Hanke S. Effects of enamel sealing on shear bond strength and the adhesive remnant index. J Orofac Orthop. 2017;78:1–10.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Proffit WR, Sarver DM. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013. 366–368. Proffit WR, Sarver DM. Proffit WR, Fields HW, Sarver DM, Ackerman JL. Contemporary orthodontics. 5th ed. St. Louis: Elsevier/Mosby; 2013. 366–368.
27.
go back to reference Mundstock KS, Sadowsky PL, Lacefield W, Bae S. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;116:635–41.CrossRef Mundstock KS, Sadowsky PL, Lacefield W, Bae S. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 1999;116:635–41.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Jena AK, Duggal R, Mehrotra AK. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007;20:101–15. Jena AK, Duggal R, Mehrotra AK. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: a comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs. 2007;20:101–15.
30.
go back to reference Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC. A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. J Orthod. 2001;28:301–5.CrossRef Littlewood SJ, Mitchell L, Greenwood DC. A randomized controlled trial to investigate brackets bonded with a hydrophilic primer. J Orthod. 2001;28:301–5.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley WA. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T, editors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. p. 168. Eliades T, Eliades G, Brantley WA. In: Brantley WA, Eliades T, editors. Orthodontic materials: scientific and clinical aspects. Stuttgart: Thieme; 2001. p. 168.
Metadata
Title
In vitro evaluation of a ceramic bracket with a laser-structured base
Author
Selma Elekdag-Türk
Publication date
01-12-2020
Publisher
BioMed Central
Keyword
Laser
Published in
BMC Oral Health / Issue 1/2020
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6831
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1009-9

Other articles of this Issue 1/2020

BMC Oral Health 1/2020 Go to the issue