Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs.
Two new ceramic brackets-one designed with a metal-lined arch wire slot and the other with an epoxy resin base-have been recently introduced. The new brackets are thought to combine the esthetic advantages of ceramics and the functional advantages of debonding metal brackets. The purpose of this study was to compare the following: 1) the shear bond strength of the 2 brackets, and 2) the bond failure location when the brackets are debonded with pliers. Sixty-one Clarity (3M Unitek) collapsible ceramic brackets and 66 MXi (TP Orthodontics, Inc) brackets were bonded to the teeth with the same bonding system. The Zwick Universal Test Machine (Zwick Gm bH & Co) was used to determine the shear bond strength force levels needed to debond the brackets. The appropriate pliers also were used to debond both types of brackets to determine the mode of bond failure that will be encountered clinically. After debonding, all the teeth and brackets were examined with 10x magnification. Any adhesive that remained after the bracket removal was assessed according to the Adhesive Remnant Index. The findings indicated that the shear bond strength of the Clarity ceramic brackets was significantly greater than that of the MXi ceramic brackets. However, both brackets exhibited forces that were adequate for clinical use. The Adhesive Remnant Index scores for both the shear test and the plier debonding indicated a similar bond failure pattern when the 2 ceramic brackets were compared with each other. This suggests that, when these brackets are debonded with the Weingart (Ormco) and ETM (Ormco) pliers, there was a greater tendency for most of the adhesive to remain on the enamel surface. In conclusion, the most efficient method to debond the MXi ceramic bracket is by placing the blades of the ETM 346 pliers between the bracket base and the enamel surface. On the other hand, the most efficient method of debonding the Clarity bracket is by using the Weingart pliers and applying pressure to the tiewings. When the 2 ceramic brackets were debonded as recommended here, most of the residual adhesive remained on the enamel surface, a pattern similar to the one observed previously with metal brackets. The failure at the bracket-adhesive interface decreases the probability of enamel damage but necessitates the removal of more residual adhesive after debonding.
College of Dentistry, University of Iowa, Iowa City 52242-1001, USA.
S E
SE
Bishara
M E
ME
Olsen
L
L
VonWald
J R
JR
Jakobsen
D000269:Adhesives / Q000737:chemistry; D000497:Alloys / Q000737:chemistry; D002516:Ceramics / Q000737:chemistry; D017005:Dental Debonding / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000295:instrumentation; D004853:Epoxy Resins / Q000737:chemistry; D004955:Esthetics, Dental; D006801:Humans; D008422:Materials Testing / Q000295:instrumentation / Q000379:methods; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties
D000269:Adhesives; D000497:Alloys; D004853:Epoxy Resins