-
International Journal of Computerized... Jun 2021The positional accuracy of bracket placement planned through tooth setup vs actual placement was evaluated by means of conventional thermoplastic indirect bonding trays...
AIM
The positional accuracy of bracket placement planned through tooth setup vs actual placement was evaluated by means of conventional thermoplastic indirect bonding trays and customized 3D-printed indirect bonding trays.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 280 bracket positions placed on the crowns of 10 dental plaster models were evaluated. The manual setup method and a thermoplastic indirect bonding tray were used for the manual group. For the CAD/CAM group, the bracket was positioned using a digital setup and a corresponding 3D-printed tray. The positional accuracy of the bracket placement on the duplicated gypsum model using the trays was evaluated by means of 3D software. Six errors of bracket position (height, depth, mesiodistal, torque, rotation, and tip errors), including linear and angular errors, were measured. Differences in variables were compared across subgroups using the independent t test or the Mann-Whitney U test.
RESULTS
Only the height error differed significantly (P < 0.05) between groups (manual: 0.2 mm; CAD/CAM: 0.12 mm). For both incisors and molars, the manual group showed significantly greater height errors than the CAD/CAM group (P < 0.05). The analysis of variance of the position error to the whole bracket showed statistically significant differences between tooth positions, linear measurements, and angular measurements (P < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
A 3D-printed indirect bonding tray showed accuracy similar to that of conventional methods for bracket placement, with slightly greater bracket height accuracy. Further studies should strive to improve accuracy in terms of tooth positions.
Topics: Computer-Aided Design; Dental Bonding; Humans; Models, Dental; Orthodontic Brackets; Printing, Three-Dimensional
PubMed: 34085499
DOI: No ID Found -
The Journal of Adhesive Dentistry 2019To evaluate shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and orthodontic bracket base after debonding of orthodontic brackets bonded using two different...
PURPOSE
To evaluate shear bond strength (SBS), adhesive remnant index (ARI), and orthodontic bracket base after debonding of orthodontic brackets bonded using two different adhesives.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Ninety sound human premolars were divided into three groups of n = 30. 1. Transbond, where brackets were bonded with Transbond XT (3M Unitek); 2. Multilink, where brackets were bonded with Multilink Speed (Ivoclar Vivadent); 3. Multilink+etch, where brackets were bonded using Multilink Speed after etching enamel. ARI scores were obtained using a stereomicroscope. SEM was used to evaluate the treated enamel surfaces and the base of the brackets. One-way ANOVA was performed to statistically analyze SBS. The Kruskal-Wallis test was conducted to investigate ARI scores, followed by multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05).
RESULTS
SBS was significantly lower in the Multilink group compared to the other groups (p < 0.05). SEM evaluation revealed minimum penetration of resin tags within the enamel and that most of the resin was attached to the base of the brackets in the Multilink group compared to the other two groups (p < 0.05).
CONCLUSION
Application of Multilink Speed on nonetched enamel provides acceptable SBS of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel with minimum penetration of resin tags into enamel and less residual resin on tooth surfaces.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Stress Analysis; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Surface Properties
PubMed: 31802071
DOI: 10.3290/j.jad.a43652 -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Jun 2021The present study compared the frictional forces of three types of self-ligating lingual appliances.
AIM AND OBJECTIVE
The present study compared the frictional forces of three types of self-ligating lingual appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The lingual appliances (2D, Forestadent; Alias, Ormco; and Clippy L, Tomy International) consisted of a self-ligating bracket (second premolar) and two self-ligating tubes (first and second molars) bonded to a stainless steel jig and attached to a "drawing-friction tester." Full-size and non-full-size stainless steel archwires were tested, and the static and kinetic friction acting on six lingual appliance/wire combinations was estimated ( = 5). Three-dimensional micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis of each premolar bracket was performed. The frictional forces were compared between the bracket/wire combinations using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
RESULTS
The Alias and Clippy L bracket/wire combinations had greater contact between the wire surfaces and bracket slots compared to the 2D bracket/wire combination. For all lingual appliances, the static and kinetic frictional forces were significantly higher for the full-size than non-full-size archwire. The 2D bracket, which had a wider outer wing, had less frictional force than the other appliances. The Alias, which had a narrower outer wing, had a significantly lower frictional force than the Clippy L.
CONCLUSIONS
Frictional force was significantly higher for heavier full-size bracket/archwire combinations than for non-full-size archwires. The 2D bracket had lower frictional force due to its archwire-holding mechanism. The outer wing width may influence the frictional resistance.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
The frictional forces of self-ligating lingual appliances vary, and bracket design and archwire size may influence the frictional performance.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Dental Stress Analysis; Friction; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Titanium; X-Ray Microtomography
PubMed: 34393114
DOI: No ID Found -
The Angle Orthodontist May 2019To investigate the potential cytotoxicity of the bracket identification dyes commonly used in orthodontic fixed appliances.
OBJECTIVES
To investigate the potential cytotoxicity of the bracket identification dyes commonly used in orthodontic fixed appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six bracket brands representing the market in various aspects were selected. Ten sets of each bracket brand were acquired, and the identification dyes on them were scraped. They were tested for cytotoxicity at three different levels of concentration (2.5 mg/mL, 5 mg/mL, and 10 mg/mL), with the aid of a real-time cell analysis system. The results were compared within and between the groups. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS
None of the six investigated dyes displayed cytotoxicity at the 2.5 mg/mL concentration. Of the investigated brands, three at 5 mg/mL and four at 10 mg/mL displayed cytotoxicity.
CONCLUSIONS
Some of the identification dyes in this study did display cytotoxicity at the higher concentrations tested. Alternative methods for bracket identification should be considered.
Topics: Coloring Agents; Orthodontic Brackets; Surface Properties
PubMed: 30644756
DOI: 10.2319/061218-439.1 -
Brazilian Journal of Biology = Revista... 2022Nanoparticles (NPs) are insoluble particles with a diameter of fewer than 100 nanometers. Two main methods have been utilized in orthodontic therapy to avoid microbial... (Review)
Review
Nanoparticles (NPs) are insoluble particles with a diameter of fewer than 100 nanometers. Two main methods have been utilized in orthodontic therapy to avoid microbial adherence or enamel demineralization. Certain NPs are included in orthodontic adhesives or acrylic resins (fluorohydroxyapatite, fluorapatite, hydroxyapatite, SiO2, TiO2, silver, nanofillers), and NPs (i.e., a thin layer of nitrogen-doped TiO2 on the bracket surfaces) are coated on the surfaces of orthodontic equipment. Although using NPs in orthodontics may open up modern facilities, prior research looked at antibacterial or physical characteristics for a limited period of time, ranging from one day to several weeks, and the limits of in vitro studies must be understood. The long-term effectiveness of nanotechnology-based orthodontic materials has not yet been conclusively confirmed and needs further study, as well as potential safety concerns (toxic effects) associated with NP size.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Silicon Dioxide; Titanium
PubMed: 35195179
DOI: 10.1590/1519-6984.257070 -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Jan 2024The study aims to correlate the frictional forces (FF) of four different types of commercially available ceramic brackets to their surface topography.
AIM
The study aims to correlate the frictional forces (FF) of four different types of commercially available ceramic brackets to their surface topography.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two monocrystalline (MC) brackets (CLEAR™, Adanta, Germany; Inspire ICE™, Ormco, USA), one polycrystalline (PC) bracket (Symetri Clear™, Ormco, USA), one clear hybrid esthetic bracket (DISCREET™, Adanta, Germany), and a stainless-steel (SS) bracket (Victory™, 3M Unitek, USA) served as control. Both static friction (SF) and kinetic friction (KF) were recorded during sliding using an Instron universal machine in dry settings. The bracket slot surface topography was evaluated. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) and a profilometer machine were used for assessment before and after sliding.
RESULTS
Frictional forces values during sliding were as follows in descending order; Inspire ICE™, CLEAR™, DISCREET™, Symetri Clear™, and, lastly, Victory™. Also, DISCREET™ scored the highest in surface roughness (Sa) values followed by Symetri Clear™. None of the correlations were statistically significant.
CONCLUSION
Frictional forces produced during sliding were not always directly related to surface roughness. Monocrystalline ceramic brackets appeared to have the greatest FF and a low surface roughness. Furthermore, DISCREET™ scored a very low frictional value comparable to metal brackets yet showed the highest surface roughness. Metal brackets exhibited the greatest surface smoothness before sliding and the least SF.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Predicting the FFs produced during sliding mechanics would help the practitioner while choosing the bracket system to be used, and while planning the treatment mechanics, how much force to deliver, and how much tooth movement to expect. How to cite this article: AlBadr AH, Talic NF. Correlating Frictional Forces Generated by Different Bracket Types during Sliding and Surface Topography Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Optical Profilometer. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(1):41-51.
Topics: Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Friction; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Dental Stress Analysis; Esthetics, Dental; Metals; Stainless Steel; Materials Testing; Surface Properties
PubMed: 38514430
DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3625 -
Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2024The primary aim of this study was to provide a review of the types and frequency of orthodontic brackets, molar bands and orthodontic auxiliaries used for patients... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
The primary aim of this study was to provide a review of the types and frequency of orthodontic brackets, molar bands and orthodontic auxiliaries used for patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. The secondary aim was to evaluate the risk of failure of these items during orthognathic surgery.
METHODS
From three Dutch hospitals, 124 adult patients were included in this prospective cohort study. Five independent researchers collected the data during surgery using a specifically created data extraction form. The type of surgery, surgeon, orthodontist and type of orthodontic bracket, molar band or auxiliary were noted for each tooth. To evaluate their failure risk, the following variables were noted: failure and site; and type and cause of failure.
RESULTS
Stainless-steel brackets were the most frequently (75.8%) used bracket type seen in patients undergoing orthognathic surgery. Ceramic brackets were seen in 24.2% of the cases and were only applied in the anterior region. Molar bands were present in 58.9% of the patients and mostly with bands on the first molars in combination with bonded tubes on the second molars. In 32.2% of all cases, one or more failures were noted. One-third of all failures were described as detachment of the molar tube on the most posterior molar. Kobayashi ligatures and powerpins showed the highest risk of failure (odds ratio [OR] 3.70, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.91-7.15). No significant difference in failure rate was found between stainless-steel brackets, molar bands (OR 0.34, 95% CI = 0.08-1.43) and ceramic brackets (OR 0.44, 95% CI = 0.14-1.45).
CONCLUSION
Stainless-steel brackets, ceramic brackets, molar bands and surgical hooks are suitable for orthognathic cases. Kobayashi ligatures and powerpins had a significantly higher risk of failure so are not recommended for temporary intraoperative maxillomandibular fixation (TIO-MMF).
Topics: Adult; Humans; Orthognathic Surgery; Orthodontic Brackets; Prospective Studies; Molar; Steel; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Orthodontic Appliance Design
PubMed: 37462079
DOI: 10.1177/14653125231186825 -
BMC Oral Health May 2024This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fence tray matching care (FTMC) in bracket bonding by measuring excess adhesive, as well as linear and angular deviations, and...
OBJECTIVE
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of fence tray matching care (FTMC) in bracket bonding by measuring excess adhesive, as well as linear and angular deviations, and by comparing it with the half-wrapped tray (HWT).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
An intraoral scanner was used to acquire data on the maxillary dental arch of a patient with periodontitis.Furthermore, 20 maxillary dental arch models were 3D printed. Using 3Shape, PlastyCAD software, and 3D printing technology, 10 FTMC (method I) and HWT (method II) were obtained. By preoperative preparation, intraoperative coordination, and postoperative measurement, the brackets were transferred from the trays to the 3D-printed maxillary dental arch models. Additionally, the bracket's excess adhesive as well as linear and angular deviations were measured, and the differences between the two methods were analyzed.
RESULTS
Excess adhesive was observed in both methods, with FTMC showing less adhesive (P< 0.001), with a statistical difference. Furthermore, HWT's vertical, tip and torque, which was significantly greater than FTMC (P< 0.05), with no statistical difference among other respects. The study data of incisors, canines, and premolars, showed that the premolars had more adhesive residue and were more likely to have linear and angular deviations.
CONCLUSIONS
The FTMC had higher bracket bonding effect in comparison to HWT, and the adhesive residue, linear and angular deviations are smaller. The fence tray offers an intuitive view of the precise bonding of the bracket, and can remove excess adhesive to prevent white spot lesions via care, providing a different bonding method for clinical applications.
Topics: Orthodontic Brackets; Humans; Dental Bonding; In Vitro Techniques; Models, Dental; Adhesives; Printing, Three-Dimensional; Dental Cements; Dental Arch
PubMed: 38735948
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04348-w -
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics Sep 2019The objective of this study was to formulate experimental orthodontic bracket adhesives and test their mechanical properties, fluoride release and antibacterial activity.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this study was to formulate experimental orthodontic bracket adhesives and test their mechanical properties, fluoride release and antibacterial activity.
METHODS
Four experimental antibacterial orthodontic bracket adhesives were prepared with different compositions of synthesized antibacterial monomers replacing total 5% of dental monomers in the control Transbond XT (3M): 5%C11, 3.5%C11+1.5%C2, 5%C16, and 3.5%C16+1.5%C2. Transbond XT alone was used as control. These groups were used to bond premolar brackets to extracted premolars. Shear bond strength (SBS) was tested using an Instron machine. For antibacterial test, disk specimens (10mm diameter, 1mm thick, n=4) were fabricated and incubated with cultures of cariogenic Streptococcus mutans for 48h, and following gentle sonication, S. mutans biofilms in colony-forming-units (CFU) on the disks were enumerated by plating on agar medium. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey test (α=0.05).
RESULTS
All experimental groups had similar shear bond strength (no significant difference) to the control. All experimental groups showed significant inhibitory effect against S. mutans biofilm formation, when compared to the control, but there was no significant difference between experimental groups.
CONCLUSION
Antibacterial orthodontic adhesive can be fabricated to have similar mechanical properties but better caries-inhibitory effect than current adhesive.
Topics: Anti-Bacterial Agents; Dental Bonding; Dental Cements; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Streptococcus mutans
PubMed: 31508710
DOI: 10.1590/2177-6709.24.4.073-079.oar -
Orthodontics & Craniofacial Research Feb 2023To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To investigate whether flash-free adhesive ceramic brackets (FFA) have a better clinical performance than conventional adhesive ceramic brackets (CVA) in patients undergoing multi-bracket orthodontic treatment. PubMed, CENTRAL, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, CNKI and Grey-literature were searched without restrictions up to January 2022. Both randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Risk of bias assessment was performed using the RoB 2.0 and ROBINS-I cochrane risk of bias tools. Eight articles, for seven studies, were included in this systematic review, and four split-mouth trials (SMT) were included in the meta-analysis. A random-effects meta-analysis found a statistically significant faster bonding time with FFA (mean difference [MD] = -93.85 seconds/quadrant, P = .002, 2 SMT), and no statistically significant difference regarding bracket failure rate at 6 months (risk ratio [RR] = 1.05; P = .93, 3 SMT), adhesive removal time (MD = -18.26 seconds/quadrant, P = .50, 2 SMT), and amount of remnant adhesive (MD = -0.13/bracket, P = .72, 2 SMT) between FFA and CVA. No difference (P > .05, 3 SMT) was found in enamel demineralization and periodontal measurements. CVA showed a statistically significant higher debonding pain score (P = .004, 1 SMT). Both flash-free and conventional adhesive ceramic brackets had a similar clinical performance, except for the faster bonding with FFA. Further, well-designed clinical trials are still required.
Topics: Humans; Dental Cements; Orthodontic Brackets; Dental Bonding; Dental Debonding; Ceramics; Materials Testing
PubMed: 35506474
DOI: 10.1111/ocr.12585