Compressive Strength Comparison of Different Orthodontic Metal Bracket Systems
-
Published:2024-07-31
Issue:15
Volume:14
Page:6692
-
ISSN:2076-3417
-
Container-title:Applied Sciences
-
language:en
-
Short-container-title:Applied Sciences
Author:
Şaylan Çağan Erkman1ORCID, Özel Mehmet Birol1ORCID
Affiliation:
1. Department of Orthodontics, Kocaeli University Faculty of Dentistry, 41190 Kocaeli, Turkey
Abstract
Rebonding of orthodontic brackets to new positions during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances is a common practice and it is important not to cause plastic deformation during bracket removal. The aim of this study was to evaluate the resistance of various brackets to compression and assess their thresholds for plastic deformation. 5 different groups of metal brackets (BioQuick, Damon Q, Experience, Mini Diamond, Mini Sprint II) were bonded to 85 extracted human central incisor teeth utilizing the same adhesive system (Transbond XT). Compressive forces were applied via Weingart forceps in order to mimic clinical setting with the Shimadzu Universal tester. Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for comparing groups. Damon Q group exhibited the highest yield point value (549.35 N), the highest ultimate strength value (764.50 N) and the highest failure/debonding point value (721.89 N). The lowest yield point value (211.73 N), the lowest ultimate strength value (224.07 N) and the lowest failure/debonding point value (121.71 N) were found in the Mini Diamond group. The ultimate strength point values of Damon Q and Experience brackets were higher compared to Mini Diamond, BioQuick and Mini Sprint II brackets (p < 0.05). No statistically significant difference between Damon Q and Experience brackets in terms of yield strength and ultimate strength values (p > 0.05) were observed. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) score was 3 for all debonded samples. It may be concluded that Damon Q brackets were more resistant to plastic deformation than Mini Diamond, BioQuick and Mini Sprint II brackets (p < 0.05).
Reference30 articles.
1. Comparison of the Accuracy of Bracket Placement between Direct and Indirect Bonding Techniques;Koo;Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.,1999 2. Fan, X.-C., Chen, L., and Huang, X.-F. (2017). Effects of Various Debonding and Adhesive Clearance Methods on Enamel Surface: An in Vitro Study. BMC Oral Health, 17. 3. Pinho, M., Manso, M.C., Almeida, R.F., Martin, C., Carvalho, Ó., Henriques, B., Silva, F., Pinhão Ferreira, A., and Souza, J.C.M. (2020). Bond Strength of Metallic or Ceramic Orthodontic Brackets to Enamel, Acrylic, or Porcelain Surfaces. Materials, 13. 4. Paolone, G., Mandurino, M., Baldani, S., Paolone, M.G., Goracci, C., Scolavino, S., Gherlone, E., Cantatore, G., and Gastaldi, G. (2023). Quantitative Volumetric Enamel Loss after Orthodontic Debracketing/Debonding and Clean-Up Procedures: A Systematic Review. Appl. Sci., 13. 5. The Effect of Different Methods of Bracket Removal Onthe Amount of Residual Adhesive;Oliver;Am. J. Orthod. Dentofac. Orthop.,1988
|
|