-
The Angle Orthodontist Sep 2021To examine the torque moment that occurs between esthetic brackets and bendable alloy (stainless steel [SS], titanium-molybdenum [Ti-Mo], and titanium-niobium [Ti-Nb])...
OBJECTIVES
To examine the torque moment that occurs between esthetic brackets and bendable alloy (stainless steel [SS], titanium-molybdenum [Ti-Mo], and titanium-niobium [Ti-Nb]) wires.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study examined ceramic (CR), zirconium oxide (ZC), polycarbonate (PC), and conventional metallic brackets (MT) (upper, 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slots) combined with SS, Ti-Mo, and Ti-Nb wires using elastic module ligation. The torque moments delivered by various wire and bracket combinations were measured using a torque gauge apparatus. The wire torque angles at 5-40° were examined.
RESULTS
The torque value increased in the order of CR, ZC, MT, and PC brackets for both 0.018-inch and 0.022-inch slots. The fracture points of the CR and ZC brackets combined with SS and Ti-Mo wires were approximately more than 30° and 35°, respectively. No fracture points were detected in the combination of ZC brackets and Ti-Nb wires.
CONCLUSIONS
The current study identified the material characteristics of CR, ZR, and PC brackets during torque tooth movements. The present results demonstrate a characteristic combined effect between different esthetic brackets and bendable alloy wires.
Topics: Alloys; Dental Stress Analysis; Esthetics, Dental; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Titanium; Torque
PubMed: 33822872
DOI: 10.2319/081820-729.1 -
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics =... Jul 2016Bracket material, bracket design, archwire material, and ligature type are critical modifiers of friction behavior during archwire-guided movement of teeth. We designed... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVES
Bracket material, bracket design, archwire material, and ligature type are critical modifiers of friction behavior during archwire-guided movement of teeth. We designed this in vitro study to compare the friction losses of ceramic injection-molded (CIM) versus pressed-ceramic (PC) and metal injection-molded (MIM) brackets-used with different ligatures and archwires-during archwire-guided retraction of a canine.
METHODS
Nine bracket systems were compared, including five CIM (Clarity™ and Clarity™ ADVANCED, both by 3M Unitek; discovery(®) pearl by Dentaurum; Glam by Forestadent; InVu by TP Orthodontics), two PC (Inspire Ice by Ormco; Mystique by DENTSPLY GAC), and two MIM (discovery(®) and discovery(®) smart, both by Dentaurum) systems. All of these were combined with archwires made of either stainless steel or fiberglass-reinforced resin (remanium(®) ideal arch or Translucent pearl ideal arch, both by Dentaurum) and with elastic ligatures or uncoated or coated stainless steel (all by Dentaurum). Archwire-guided retraction of a canine was simulated with a force of 0.5 N in the orthodontic measurement and simulation system (OMSS). Friction loss was determined by subtracting the effective orthodontic forces from the applied forces. Based on five repeated measurements performed on five brackets each, weighted means were calculated and evaluated by analysis of variance and a Bonferroni post hoc test with a significance level of 0.05.
RESULTS
Friction losses were significantly (p < 0.05) higher (58-79 versus 20-30 %) for the combinations involving the steel versus the resin archwire in conjunction with the elastic ligature. The uncoated steel ligatures were associated with the lowest friction losses with Clarity™ (13 %) and discovery(®) pearl (16 %) on the resin archwire and the highest friction losses with Clarity™ ADVANCED (53 %) and Mystique (63 %) on the steel archwire. The coated steel ligatures were associated with friction losses similar to the uncoated steel ligatures on the steel archwire. Regardless of ligature types, mild signs of abrasion were noted on the resin archwire.
CONCLUSIONS
The lowest friction losses were measured with rounded ceramic brackets used with a stainless-steel ligature and the resin archwire. No critical difference to friction behavior was apparent between the various manufacturing technologies behind the bracket systems.
Topics: Ceramics; Cuspid; Dental Materials; Dental Prosthesis Design; Dental Stress Analysis; Equipment Failure Analysis; Friction; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Pressure; Stress, Mechanical; Surface Properties
PubMed: 27142040
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-016-0030-8 -
Progress in Orthodontics Jul 2019To introduce an orthodontic bracket debonding device capable of measuring debonding force clinically by a novel sensor mechanism MATERIALS AND METHOD: A prototype...
Validation and reliability of a prototype orthodontic bracket debonding device equipped with force-sensitive resistor (FSR): a novel method of measuring orthodontic bracket debonding force in vivo.
BACKGROUND
To introduce an orthodontic bracket debonding device capable of measuring debonding force clinically by a novel sensor mechanism MATERIALS AND METHOD: A prototype orthodontic debonding device was constructed utilizing a lift-off debonding instrument (LODI) and force-sensitive resistor (FSR). For data interpretation, the force sensor was equipped with a microcontroller and C++ programming software running on a computer. Ninety-nine (99) 0.022-in. conventional metallic brackets were bonded to premolar teeth in vitro by a single clinician applying the same adhesive and bonding technique. For validation, the mean debonding force measured by the prototype debonding device (n = 30) and the universal testing machine (n = 30) was compared. Both intra- and inter-examiner reliability tests were done by holding and operating the device in a standardized manner. Following debonding by the prototype device, the bracket failure pattern was evaluated (n = 30) by adhesive remnant index (ARI) under the stereomicroscope at × 30 magnification. Statistical analysis included independent samples t test for validation and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) with a 95% confidence interval for both intra- and inter-examiner reliability.
RESULTS
Mean orthodontic bracket debonding force measured by the prototype device (9.36 ± 1.65 N) and the universal testing machine (10.43 ± 2.71 N) was not significantly different (p < 0.05). The prototype device exhibited excellent intra- [ICC (3, 1) = 0.942] and inter-examiner reliability [ICC (2, 1) = 0.921] and was able to debond brackets mostly at the bracket-adhesive interface.
LIMITATION
Due to adjusting the position and mechanism of the force sensor, the device had to be held in a modified standardized position.
CONCLUSION
A novel method of measuring in vivo orthodontic bracket debonding force has been introduced which proved to be validated, reliable, and safe in terms of enamel damage.
Topics: Bicuspid; Dental Debonding; Orthodontic Brackets; Reproducibility of Results
PubMed: 31281954
DOI: 10.1186/s40510-019-0277-x -
The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Dec 2020The present study aimed to assess the effect of fluoridated and nonfluoridated mouth ri nses on resistance to friction between orthodontic bracket and archwire.
AIM AND OBJECTIVE
The present study aimed to assess the effect of fluoridated and nonfluoridated mouth ri nses on resistance to friction between orthodontic bracket and archwire.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
This study comprises 60 premolar stainless steel (SS) brackets with 0.022 inches slot size. The 0.019 × 0.025 dimensions SS archwires were cut into 5 cm long specimens. They were grouped into three main categories, group I: artificial saliva (control solution), group II: Aloe Dent mouthwash (ALO), and group III: 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthwash. The specimens from each group were either immersed in the test solution or in the control solution for 10 hours. Later, the specimens were transferred to an incubator maintained at 37°C. Post 10 hours, the specimens were immersed for 30 minutes in distilled water. A scanning electron microscope was used to study the surface morphology and a universal testing machine was used to measure the frictional resistance.
RESULTS
The distribution of normality for three study groups' recorded data was checked using Shapiro-Wilk test. The highest frictional resistance (1.94 ± 0.02) was demonstrated by specimens immersed in 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthwash than those immersed in Aloe Dent mouthwash (1.28 ± 0.66) and artificial saliva (1.10 ± 0.32). The difference found between the groups by an analysis of covariance was statistically significant. The highest surface roughness (22.30 ± 0.12) was revealed by specimens immersed in 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthwash than those immersed in Aloe Dent mouthwash (18.28 ± 0.26) and artificial saliva (15.86 ± 0.42). A statistically significant difference between the groups was shown by an analysis of covariance.
CONCLUSION
After considering the drawbacks of this study, we conclude that specimens immersed in Aloe Dent mouthwash demonstrated less frictional resistance and surface roughness when compared to those immersed in 0.05% sodium fluoride mouthwash.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
During sliding mechanism, the frictional resistance between orthodontic archwire and brackets imposes problems, such as lessening the applied force and movement of tooth, and also results in anchorage loss. So, orthodontists should always take care while prescribing mouthwashes to reduce their effects on the friction.
Topics: Dental Stress Analysis; Friction; Materials Testing; Mouthwashes; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties
PubMed: 33893255
DOI: No ID Found -
Ion Release and Galvanic Corrosion of Different Orthodontic Brackets and Wires in Artificial Saliva.The Journal of Contemporary Dental... Mar 2017To investigate the galvanic corrosion of brackets manufactured by four different companies coupled with stainless steel (SS) or nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires in an...
INTRODUCTION
To investigate the galvanic corrosion of brackets manufactured by four different companies coupled with stainless steel (SS) or nickel-titanium (NiTi) wires in an artificial saliva solution.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A total of 24 mandibular central incisor Roth brackets of four different manufacturers (American Orthodontics, Dentaurum, Shinye, ORJ) were used in this experimental study. These brackets were immersed in artificial saliva along with SS or NiTi orthodontic wires (0.016'', round) for 28 days. The electric potential difference of each bracket/ wire coupled with a saturated calomel reference electrode was measured via a voltmeter and recorded constantly. Corrosion rate (CR) was calculated, and release of ions was measured with an atomic absorption spectrometer. Stereomicroscope was used to evaluate all samples. Then, samples with corrosion were further assessed by scanning electron microscope and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy. Two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze data.
RESULTS
Among ions evaluated, release of nickel ions from Shinye brackets was significantly higher than that of other brackets. The mean potential difference was significantly lower in specimens containing a couple of Shinye brackets and SS wire compared with other specimens. No significant difference was observed in the mean CR of various groups (p > 0.05). Microscopic evaluation showed corrosion in two samples only: Shinye bracket coupled with SS wire and American Orthodontics bracket coupled with NiTi wire.
CONCLUSION
Shinye brackets coupled with SS wire showed more susceptibility to galvanic corrosion. There were no significant differences among specimens in terms of the CR or released ions except the release of Ni ions, which was higher in Shinye brackets.
Topics: Alloys; Corrosion; Electrochemistry; Humans; Ions; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Saliva, Artificial; Spectrometry, X-Ray Emission; Spectrophotometry, Atomic; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 28258269
DOI: No ID Found -
Sensors (Basel, Switzerland) Sep 2021Accurate bracket placement is essential for successful orthodontic treatment. An indirect bracket bonding system (IDBS) has been developed to ensure proper bracket...
Accurate bracket placement is essential for successful orthodontic treatment. An indirect bracket bonding system (IDBS) has been developed to ensure proper bracket positioning with three-dimensional computer-aided transfer jigs. The purpose of this study was to investigate the accuracy of bracket positioning by a one-body transfer jig according to the tooth type and presence/absence of a resin base. In total, 506 teeth from 20 orthodontic patients were included in this study. After initial dental models were scanned, virtual setup and bracket positioning procedures were performed with 3D software. Transfer jigs and RP models were fabricated with a 3D printer, and brackets were bonded to the RP model with or without resin base fabrication. The best-fit method of 3D digital superimposition was used to evaluate the lineal and angular accuracy of the actual bracket position compared to a virtual bracket position. Although all the measurements showed significant differences in position, they were clinically acceptable. Regarding the tooth types, premolars and molars showed higher accuracy than anterior teeth. The presence or absence of a resin base did not consistently affect the accuracy. In conclusion, the proper application of IDBS should be performed considering the errors, and resin base fabrication might not be essential in ensuring high-accuracy IDBS.
Topics: Humans; Models, Dental; Orthodontic Brackets; Tooth
PubMed: 34502801
DOI: 10.3390/s21175911 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Feb 2021The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of friction on design of the type of bracket, patients' perception of pain and the impact on their oral... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of friction on design of the type of bracket, patients' perception of pain and the impact on their oral health-related quality of life. A randomized clinical trial was carried out with 90 patients (62.2% women and 37.8% men) with three kinds of fixed multi-bracket appliances: Conventional (GC), fixed multi-bracket low friction (GS) and self-ligating (GA). The VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) was used to determine pain during the first seven days of treatment at different points in time. The patients were also given the OHIP-14 (Oral Health Impact Profile) questionnaire to analyse their oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) after the first 30 days of treatment. The ANOVA test was used for the analysis of the variables and the post hoc Bonferroni test for the comparison between groups. Maximum pain was observed between one and two days after the start of treatment. The GC group showed the greatest degree of pain, with maximum values (4.5 ± 2.0) at 24 h. The self-ligation brackets show lower impact on patients' oral health-related quality of life (0.8 ± 2.2, < 0.01). Friction in the type of bracket influences pain and the Oral Health-Related Quality of Life of patients who use multi-bracket fixed orthodontics.
Topics: Friction; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Quality of Life
PubMed: 33671217
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57020171 -
Australian Orthodontic Journal May 2016To test the hypothesis that enamel surface deproteinisation with different concentrations of bromelain in association with 10% papain increases the shear bond strength... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
AIM
To test the hypothesis that enamel surface deproteinisation with different concentrations of bromelain in association with 10% papain increases the shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded with orthodontic composite and resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Orthodontic brackets were attached according to the following protocols to 195 bovine incisors, which were acquired and divided into 13 groups: 1) Transbond XT (TXT) according to the manufacturer's recommendations; 2) Deproteinisation with 3% bromelain (BD) plus 10% papain and TXT; 3) 6% BD plus 10% Papain and TXT; 4) RMGIC, without enamel deproteinisation and without acid etching; 5) RMGIC, with 3% BD plus 10% papain and without acid etching; 6) RMGIC, with 6% BD plus 10% papain and without acid etching; 7) attachment using RMGIC following etching with polyacrylic acid; 8) 3% BD plus 10% papain, attachment using RMGIC and etching with polyacrylic acid; 9) 6% BD plus 10% papain, and attachment using RMGIC following etching with polyacrylic acid; 10) etching with 37% phosphoric acid and attachment using RMGIC; 11) 3% BD plus 10% papain, etching with 37% phosphoric acid and attachment using RMGIC; 12) 6% BD plus 10% papain, etching with 37% phosphoric acid and attachment using RMGIC; 13) deproteinisation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), etching with polyacrylic acid and RMGIC. After bonding, the brackets were removed by a universal mechanical testing machine, which recorded shear bond strength at failure. The material remaining on the tooth was assessed using the adhesive remnant index (ARI).
RESULTS
Deproteinisation with 3% and 6% bromelain gel plus papain significantly increased the shear bond strength (p < 0.05), when acid etching was performed with phosphoric acid, followed by primer application and attachment using Transbond XT (Group 3) and when attached with RMGIC without etching. Deproteinisation with 6% bromelain gel plus papain significantly increased (p < 0.05) the ARI score only when attachment was performed using RMGIC, without etching (Group 6).
CONCLUSIONS
Deproteinisation with bromelain associated with papain in a gel increased the shear bond strength and is recommended before orthodontic bracket attachment.
Topics: Acid Etching, Dental; Acrylic Resins; Animals; Bromelains; Cattle; Dental Bonding; Dental Enamel; Dental Enamel Proteins; Dental Stress Analysis; Gels; Glass Ionomer Cements; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Papain; Phosphoric Acids; Proteolysis; Random Allocation; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Sodium Hypochlorite; Stress, Mechanical; Surface Properties
PubMed: 27468588
DOI: No ID Found -
L' Orthodontie Francaise Jun 2022Plaque control remains a concern in oral health but also in orthodontics.
INTRODUCTION
Plaque control remains a concern in oral health but also in orthodontics.
OBJECTIVE
The aim of this paper was to investigate the dental plaque adhesion to different orthodontic appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Four literature reviews were initiated to clarify the accumulation of dental plaque to different orthodontic appliances, namely the type of brackets (conventional versus self-ligating, metal versus clear), the type of ligatures (metal versus elastomeric) in addition to the type of archwires. Moreover, a gallery of Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images was made on different orthodontic appliances before and/or after time in the oral cavity.
RESULTS
Considering the strong methodological heterogeneity of the included studies, there is no consensus on which type of bracket should be preferred for the prevention of plaque retention. Metal ligatures would be less prone to plaque accumulation compared to elastomeric ligatures, which are themselves color-dependent. The type of archwire was not investigated in this topic. SEM images highlighted the presence of anfractuosities on the surface of new orthodontic archwires as well as the presence of biofilm at different degrees of maturation on the appliances after time in the oral cavity.
CONCLUSION
Although it is not possible to establish a consensus on which orthodontic appliances should be preferred to decrease plaque retention, different stages of biofilm evolution are observable on their surface and therefore potentially associated with a proportional virulence.
Topics: Biofilms; Dental Alloys; Dental Plaque; Elastomers; Humans; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel
PubMed: 35818281
DOI: 10.1684/orthodfr.2022.74 -
Microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets: a systematic review.Journal of Orthodontics Jun 2022Decalcification and gingivitis caused by plaque accumulation around brackets are common iatrogenic effects of fixed appliances. The influence of conventional versus...
BACKGROUND
Decalcification and gingivitis caused by plaque accumulation around brackets are common iatrogenic effects of fixed appliances. The influence of conventional versus self-ligating bracket design on microbial colonisation is unknown.
OBJECTIVE
To assess the levels of microbial colonisation associated with conventional and self-ligating brackets.
SEARCH SOURCES
Three databases were searched for publications from 2009 to 2021.
DATA SELECTION
Randomised controlled trials comparing levels of microbial colonisation before and during treatment with conventional and self-ligating brackets were assessed independently and in duplicate.
DATA EXTRACTION
Data were extracted independently by two authors from the studies that fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Risk of bias assessments were made using the revised Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme Checklist.
RESULTS
A total of 11 randomised controlled trials were included in this systematic review. Six of the studies were found to be at low risk of bias and five presented with some concerns. The studies were considered moderate to high quality. Five trials reported no statistically significant difference in microbial colonisation between bracket types. The remaining studies showed mixed results, with some reporting increased colonisation of conventional brackets and others increased colonisation of self-ligating brackets. The heterogeneity of study methods and outcomes precluded meta-analysis.
CONCLUSION
Of the 11 studies included in this systematic review, five found no differences in colonisation between conventional and self-ligating brackets. The remaining studies showed mixed results. The evidence is inconclusive regarding the association between bracket design and levels of microbial colonisation.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Humans; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires
PubMed: 34839734
DOI: 10.1177/14653125211056023