Display options
Cite
Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, et al. Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(11):ZC64-ZC68doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910.
Ansari, M. Y., Agarwal, D. K., Gupta, A., Bhattacharya, P., Ansar, J., & Bhandari, R. (2016). Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 10(11), ZC64-ZC68. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910
Ansari, Mohd Younus, et al. "Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study." Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR vol. 10,11 (2016): ZC64-ZC68. doi: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910
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 Nov;10(11):ZC64-ZC68. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910. Epub 2016 Nov 01. PMID: 28050507; PMCID: PMC5198460.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Clin Diagn Res. 2016 Nov;10(11):ZC64-ZC68. doi: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910. Epub 2016 Nov 01.

Shear Bond Strength of Ceramic Brackets with Different Base Designs: Comparative In-vitro Study.

Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR

Mohd Younus Ansari, Deepak K Agarwal, Ankur Gupta, Preeti Bhattacharya, Juhi Ansar, Ravi Bhandari

Affiliations

  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 .

PMID: 28050507 PMCID: PMC5198460 DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910

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 (χ

CONCLUSION: Different base designs of metal and ceramic brackets influence SBS to enamel and all were clinically acceptable.

Keywords: Adhesive precoated base; Fracture sites; Microcrystalline mechanical base; Patented bead ball base; Polymer mesh base

References

  1. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jul;120(1):64-7 - PubMed
  2. J Orofac Orthop. 2012 Jan;73(1):49-57 - PubMed
  3. Angle Orthod. 2006 Jan;76(1):127-31 - PubMed
  4. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Sep;102(3):215-9 - PubMed
  5. Br J Orthod. 1994 Feb;21(1):33-43 - PubMed
  6. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2001 Jun;119(6):621-4 - PubMed
  7. Am J Orthod. 1980 Jun;77(6):669-78 - PubMed
  8. Lasers Med Sci. 2013 Nov;28(6):1461-6 - PubMed
  9. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1994 Jun;105(6):552-60 - PubMed
  10. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Jan;129(1):60-4 - PubMed
  11. J Orthod. 2005 Jun;32(2):146-63 - PubMed
  12. J Am Dent Assoc. 1975 Jul;91(1):101-6 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Orthod. 1992 Aug;26(8):477-9 - PubMed
  14. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Apr;111(4):374-81 - PubMed
  15. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2006 Feb;129(2):175.e7-175.e12 - PubMed
  16. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Sep;98(3):214-21 - PubMed
  17. Am J Orthod. 1979 Jun;75(6):667-77 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Orthod. 1988 Feb;22(2):82-8 - PubMed
  19. Am J Orthod. 1981 Jan;79(1):20-34 - PubMed
  20. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jun;123(6):633-40 - PubMed
  21. Angle Orthod. 2016 Mar;86(2):265-70 - PubMed
  22. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1992 Dec;102(6):552-60 - PubMed
  23. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Jul;94(1):68-73 - PubMed
  24. Br J Orthod. 1995 Aug;22(3):233-6 - PubMed
  25. Eur J Orthod. 2001 Oct;23(5):475-84 - PubMed
  26. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1993 Jul;104(1):21-6 - PubMed
  27. Eur J Orthod. 1984 Nov;6(4):267-76 - PubMed
  28. Semin Orthod. 1997 Sep;3(3):178-88 - PubMed
  29. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2012 Mar;141(3):337-44 - PubMed
  30. Eur J Orthod. 2013 Feb;35(1):103-9 - PubMed
  31. Angle Orthod. 2007 Nov;77(6):1101-8 - PubMed
  32. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003 Jul;124(1):74-82 - PubMed
  33. Eur J Orthod. 2012 Oct;34(5):610-7 - PubMed
  34. Eur J Orthod. 2010 Feb;32(1):87-93 - PubMed
  35. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1997 Jul;112(1):34-40 - PubMed
  36. J Orthod. 2003 Jun;30(2):155-8; discussion 128 - PubMed
  37. Angle Orthod. 1990 Winter;60(4):269-76 - PubMed
  38. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Sep;94(3):201-6 - PubMed
  39. Angle Orthod. 2009 May;79(3):571-6 - PubMed
  40. Angle Orthod. 2013 Jul;83(4):705-11 - PubMed
  41. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1988 Sep;94(3):222-30 - PubMed

Publication Types