Skip Navigation

The European Journal of Orthodontics 2005 27(3):231-236; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjh100
This Article
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrowScopus Links
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Quick, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, V. P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Quick, A. N.
Right arrow Articles by Joseph, V. P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontics Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oupjournals.org.

Articles

Office reconditioning of stainless steel orthodontic attachments

Andrew N. Quick1,**, Angela M. P. Harris2 and Vince P. Joseph3

1 Discipline of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand, 2 Division of Orthodontics, School of Oral Health Sciences, University of Stellenbosch, South Africa, 3 Private Practice, Rondebosch, Cape Town, South Africa

** Andrew Quick, Discipline of Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, University of Otago, PO Box 647, Dunedin, New Zealand. E-mail: Andrew.quick{at}stonebow.otago.ac.nz

An investigation was conducted to determine a simple, effective method for reconditioning stainless steel orthodontic attachments in the orthodontic office. In total, 100 new brackets were bonded to premolar teeth, then debonded and the bond strength recorded as a control for the reconditioning process. The debonded brackets were divided into six groups and each group reconditioned using different techniques as follows: attachments in four groups were flamed and then either (1) sandblasted, (2) ultrasonically cleaned, (3) ultrasonically cleaned followed by silane treatment, (4) rebonded without further treatment. Of the two remaining groups, one was sandblasted, while the brackets in the other were roughened with a greenstone. The brackets were rebonded to the premolar teeth after the enamel surfaces had been re-prepared, and their bond strengths measured.

The results indicated that sandblasting was the most effective in removing composite without a significant change in bond strength compared with new attachments. Silane application did not improve the bond strength values of flamed and ultrasonically cleaned brackets. Attachments that had only been flamed had the lowest bond strength, followed by those that had been roughened with a greenstone.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.