The European Journal of Orthodontics Advance Access originally published online on January 21, 2008
The European Journal of Orthodontics 2008 30(2):176-182; doi:10.1093/ejo/cjm100
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Evaluation of failure characteristics and bond strength after ceramic and polycarbonate bracket debonding: effect of bracket base silanization
* Department of Dentistry and Dental Hygiene, Clinical Dental Biomaterials
** Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre Groningen, The Netherlands
Address for correspondence Mutlu Özcan, Department of Dentistry and Dental Hygiene, Clinical Dental Biomaterials, University Medical Centre Groningen, Antonius Deusinglaan 1, 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands, E-mail: mutluozcan{at}hotmail.com
 |
Abstract |
|---|
The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effect of silanization on the failure type and shear–peel bond strength (SBS) of ceramic and polycarbonate brackets, and to determine the type of failure when debonded with either a universal testing machine or orthodontic pliers.
Silanized and non-silanized ceramic and polycarbonate brackets (N = 48, n = 24 per bracket type) were bonded to extracted caries-free human maxillary central incisors using an alignment apparatus under a weight of 750 g. All bonded specimens were thermocycled 1000 times (5–55°C). Half of the specimens from each group were debonded with a universal testing machine (1 mm/minute) to determine the SBS and the other half by an operator using orthodontic debonding pliers. Failure types of the enamel surface and the bracket base were identified both from visual inspection and digital photographs using the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and base remnant index (BRI).
As-received ceramic brackets showed significantly higher bond strength values (11.5 ± 4.1 MPa) than polycarbonate brackets [6.3 ± 2.7 MPa; (P = 0.0077; analysis of variance (ANOVA)]. Interaction between bracket types and silanization was not significant (P = 0.4408). Silanization did not significantly improve the mean SBS results either for the ceramic or polycarbonate brackets (12.9 ± 3.7 and 6.3 ± 2.7 MPa, respectively; P = 0.4044; two-way ANOVA, Tukey-Kramer adjustment). There was a significant difference between groups in ARI scores for ceramic (P = 0.0991) but not polycarbonate (P = 0.3916; Kruskall-Wallis) brackets. BRI values did not vary significantly for ceramic (P = 0.1476) or polycarbonate (P = 0.0227) brackets. Failure type was not significantly different when brackets were debonded with a universal testing machine or with orthodontic debonding pliers. No enamel damage was observed in any of the groups.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  B. Kukiattrakoon and B. Samruajbenjakul Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with various base designs bonded to aluminous and fluorapatite ceramics Eur J Orthod, October 1, 2009; (2009) cjp055v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|