title: Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets.
abstract: The aims of the current study were to evaluate the bond strength of a new metallic orthodontic bracket with a laser structured base (Discovery, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), and its effects on the site of bond failure and on the behavior of the enamel after debonding. One hundred and twenty recently extracted human premolars were bonded with 1 of 2 types of mechanical interlock base metal brackets: a standard system with a simple foil mesh pad (Minitrim, Dentaurum) and the Discovery bracket. A resin-based, chemically activated bonding system, No-mix (Dentaurum), was used as the adhesive system in this trial. The teeth were immersed in normal saline solution at 37 degrees C for 7 days before debonding and were randomly assigned to different subgroups. A testing machine was used to evaluate tensile and fatigue bond strengths for both brackets. After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive on the bracket and enamel detachment were assessed according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and the enamel detachment index (EDI) with a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer. The scores obtained from the ARI and the EDI showed that the laser structured base brackets had a significantly higher bond strength (mean +/- SD: 17.1 +/- 0.7 MPa) that was 2 times higher than that observed with the simple foil mesh brackets (mean +/- SD: 8.7 +/- 1.4 MPa) (P <.001). Bond failure with the laser structured base was at the enamel-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 3 in 80% of the teeth, and bond failure with the simple foil mesh base was at the bracket-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 0 in 75% of the teeth. A small area, with less than 10% of the enamel damaged (1 on the EDI) and 1.5 microm in thickness, was observed for both brackets. The laser structured base bracket's bond strength was double that of the simple foil mesh bracket but was equally safe and did not induce significant enamel detachment.
authors.affiliation: Department of Orthodontics, 2 Place Pasteur, University of Rennes I, 35000 Rennes, France. olivier.sorel@wanadoo.fr
authors.forename: Olivier
authors.initials: O
authors.lastname: Sorel
authors.forename: Rafeh
authors.initials: R
authors.lastname: El Alam
authors.forename: Francis
authors.initials: F
authors.lastname: Chagneau
authors.forename: Guy
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Cathelineau
mesh_terms: D000268:Adhesiveness; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D003722:Dental Alloys / Q000737:chemistry*; D001840:Dental Bonding; D003743:Dental Enamel / Q000648:ultrastructure; D003799:Dental Stress Analysis / Q000295:instrumentation; D004577:Electron Probe Microanalysis; D004868:Equipment Failure; D006801:Humans; D007834:Lasers; D008855:Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; D016382:Orthodontic Appliance Design; D016910:Orthodontic Brackets; D019279:Resin Cements / Q000737:chemistry; D012965:Sodium Chloride; D013314:Stress, Mechanical; D013499:Surface Properties; D013526:Surgical Mesh; D013696:Temperature; D013718:Tensile Strength; D013997:Time Factors
chemical_list: D003722:Dental Alloys; D019279:Resin Cements; D012965:Sodium Chloride