-
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2023Bracket bonding failure is one of the relevant problems in fixed orthodontics therapy, which affects the total treatment and quality of treatment results. The purpose of...
BACKGROUND
Bracket bonding failure is one of the relevant problems in fixed orthodontics therapy, which affects the total treatment and quality of treatment results. The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the frequency of bracket bond failure and find out risk factors.
METHODS
A total of 101 patients with an age range of 11-56 years were included in this retrospective study and treated for a mean period of 30.2 months. Inclusion criteria were: males and females with permanent dentition and completed orthodontic treatment in both fully bonded dental arches. Risk factors were calculated using binary logistic regression analysis.
RESULTS
The overall bracket failure rate was 14.65%. The bracket failure rate was significantly higher in the younger patients' group ( = 0.003). In most cases, patients experienced bracket failures in the first month of the treatment. Most of the bracket bond failures occurred on the left lower first molar (29.1%) and were twice as common in the lower dental arch (66.98%). Patients with increased overbite had an increased likelihood of bracket loss ( = 0.042). Class II malocclusion increased the relative risk of bracket failure, while Class III decreased the rate of bracket failure, but the difference was not statistically significant ( = 0.093).
CONCLUSIONS
The bracket bond failure rate was higher in younger patients than in older patients. Brackets placed on mandibular molars and premolars had the highest failure rate. Class II was associated with an increased bracket failure rate. Increased overbite statistically significantly increases bracket failure rate.
Topics: Male; Female; Humans; Aged; Infant; Child, Preschool; Retrospective Studies; Overbite; Incidence; Resin Cements; Orthodontic Brackets; Risk Factors
PubMed: 36901461
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph20054452 -
Scanning 2013In this study, we tested the surface roughness of bracket slots and the friction coefficient between the bracket and the stainless steel archwire before and after...
In this study, we tested the surface roughness of bracket slots and the friction coefficient between the bracket and the stainless steel archwire before and after orthodontic treatment. There were four experimental groups: groups 1 and 2 were 3M new and retrieved brackets, respectively, and groups 3 and 4 were BioQuick new and retrieved brackets, respectively. All retrieved brackets were taken from patients with the first premolar extraction and using sliding mechanics to close the extraction space. The surface roughness of specimens was evaluated using an optical interferometry profilometer, which is faster and nondestructive compared with a stylus profilometer, and provided a larger field, needing no sample preparation, compared with atomic force microscopy. Orthodontic treatment resulted in significant increases in surface roughness and coefficient of friction for both brands of brackets. However, there was no significant difference by brand for new or retrieved brackets. These retrieval analysis results highlight the necessity of reevaluating the properties and clinical behavior of brackets during treatment to make appropriate treatment decisions.
Topics: Friction; Humans; Interferometry; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontics; Surface Properties
PubMed: 23086715
DOI: 10.1002/sca.21060 -
Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics =... Jan 2022Gummetal® (Maruemu Works, Osaka, Japan), a new orthodontic wire material successfully used in clinical applications since 2006, is biocompatible and exhibits...
OBJECTIVES
Gummetal® (Maruemu Works, Osaka, Japan), a new orthodontic wire material successfully used in clinical applications since 2006, is biocompatible and exhibits exceptionally high elasticity, nonlinear elastic behavior, plasticity and strength. Systematic comparisons of friction behavior are lacking; thus, the friction of Gummetal® in the binding modus was compared to commonly used low friction wires.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In vivo tests were run with Gummetal®, CoCr (cobalt-chromium Elgiloy®, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics, Denver, CO, USA), β‑Ti (β-Titanium TMA®, Ormco, Orange, CA, USA), NiTi (nickel-titanium, NiTi-SE, Dentalline, Birkenfeld, Germany), and stainless steel (SS; Ref. 251-925, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA, USA) [dimensions: 0.014 inch (0.35 mm), 0.016 inch (0.40 mm), 0.016 × 0.022 inch (0.40 × 0.56 mm), and 0.019 × 0.025 inch (0.48 × 0.64 mm)-β-Ti not available in the dimension 0.014 inch]. These were combined with Discovery® (Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), Micro Sprint® (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), Clarity™ (3M Unitek), and Inspire Ice™ (Ormco) and slots in the dimension 0.022 inch (0.56 mm) and, except for the 0.019 × 0.025 inch wires, in the dimension 0.018 inch (0.46 mm). They were ligated with a 0.010 inch (0.25 mm) steel ligature (Smile Dental, Ratingen, Germany). Brackets were angulated by applying a moment of force of 10 Nmm against the wire, which was pulled through the slot at 0.2 mm/s.
RESULTS
In 660 tests using 132 bracket-wire combinations, friction loss for Gummetal® was comparable to and, in a few combinations with Micro Sprint®, significantly lower (p < 0.05) than SS and CoCr. The friction for Gummetal® was significantly lower (p < 0.05) than NiTi, and β‑Ti. In some bracket-wire combinations, lower friction was found with round wires compared to rectangular wires, except for the combination with Inspire Ice™, which was higher but not significant. Slot size did not have a significant effect on friction in most combinations.
CONCLUSION
The low friction associated with Gummetal® wires during arch-guided tooth movement will be a valuable addition to the armamentarium of orthodontists.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Dental Stress Analysis; Friction; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Titanium
PubMed: 34228140
DOI: 10.1007/s00056-021-00317-y -
Dental Materials Journal Oct 2022This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of four bonding agents used to bond metal brackets to zirconia under different storage conditions. Four...
This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of four bonding agents used to bond metal brackets to zirconia under different storage conditions. Four bonding agents were used [FLC: (Fuji ORTHO LC), XT: (Transbond XT), RUC-SBU: (Rely X Ultimate Clicker Adhesive Resin Cement+Single Bond Universal), and RUC-GBU: (Rely X Ultimate Clicker Adhesive Resin Cement+Gluma Bond Universal)] to bond two types of metal brackets (PT/3M) to zirconia surfaces, and they were stored in water at 37ºC for 24 h or thermocycling for 3,000 cycles. The SBS data of RUC-SBU and RUC-GBU using PT brackets were significantly higher than those of 3M brackets before and after thermocycling. It could be concluded that RUC-SBU and RUC-GBU could offer sufficient bond strength between metal brackets and zirconia for the short term compared with FLC and XT. The design of brackets can significantly affect the bond strength to zirconia.
Topics: Dental Bonding; Dental Stress Analysis; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Water; Zirconium
PubMed: 36070928
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2022-028 -
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 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2011One of the most difficult problems encountered in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance is the control of enamel demineralization around the brackets.... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
One of the most difficult problems encountered in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliance is the control of enamel demineralization around the brackets. Fluoride-releasing bonding adhesives were introduced to aid in the prevention of demineralization adjacent to orthodontic brackets. Hence, an in vitro study was conducted to evaluate and compare demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket and the bond strength using fluoride-releasing adhesive and conventional adhesive.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
One hundred and twenty healthy extracted premolars were selected for the study and were divided into two groups, each group consisting of 60 teeth. Both groups were further divided into three subgroups consisting of 20 samples each. Samples of subgroups A and B were bonded with two prototypes of fluoride-releasing adhesives (i.e. Rely-a-bond and Tru-bond). Samples of subgroup C (ortho-one) were bonded with conventional non-fluoride-releasing adhesive. Group I samples were subjected to demineralization in an acidic medium (methyl cellulose buffered with acetic acid at a pH of 4.5) for 4 weeks, which were later observed under a stereomicroscope. Group II samples were tested for shear bond strength using the Instron Universal testing machine.
RESULTS
Both fluoride-releasing adhesives showed statistically significant lower enamel demineralization around the bracket when compared with the conventional adhesive. There was no statistically significant difference on comparing the demineralization between the two prototypes of fluoride-releasing adhesive. Evaluation of shear bond strength revealed that there was no significant difference between the subgroups.
CONCLUSION
Fluoride-releasing adhesives might aid in the prevention of demineralization adjacent to the orthodontic bracket with acceptable bond strength.
Topics: Bisphenol A-Glycidyl Methacrylate; Cariostatic Agents; Delayed-Action Preparations; Dental Bonding; Dental Enamel; Fluorides, Topical; Humans; Orthodontic Brackets; Polyethylene Glycols; Resin Cements; Shear Strength; Tooth Demineralization
PubMed: 21525676
DOI: 10.4103/0970-9290.79974 -
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 -
The Angle Orthodontist Jan 2010To evaluate the quantitative effects on torque expression of varying the slot size of stainless steel orthodontic brackets and the dimension of stainless steel wire, and... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the quantitative effects on torque expression of varying the slot size of stainless steel orthodontic brackets and the dimension of stainless steel wire, and to analyze the limitations of the experimental methods used.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In vitro studies measuring torque expression in conventional and self-ligating stainless steel brackets with a torque-measuring device, with the use of straight stainless steel orthodontic wire without second-order mechanics and without loops, coils, or auxiliary wires, were sought through a systematic review process.
RESULTS
Eleven articles were selected. Direct comparison of different studies was limited by differences in the measuring devices used and in the parameters measured. On the basis of the selected studies, in a 0.018 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 31 degrees with a 0.016 x 0.016 inch stainless steel archwire to 4.6 degrees with a 0.018 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. In a 0.022 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 18 degrees with a 0.018 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire to 6 degrees with a 0.021 x 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. Active stainless steel self-ligating brackets demonstrate an engagement angle of approximately 7.5 degrees, whereas passive stainless steel self-ligating brackets show an engagement angle of approximately 14 degrees with 0.019 x 0.025 inch stainless steel wire in a 0.022 inch slot.
CONCLUSIONS
The engagement angle depends on archwire dimension and edge shape, as well as on bracket slot dimension, and is variable and larger than published theoretical values. Clinically effective torque can be achieved in a 0.022 inch bracket slot with archwire torsion of 15 to 31 degrees for active self-ligating brackets and of 23 to 35 degrees for passive self-ligating brackets with a 0.019 x 0.025 inch stainless steel wire.
Topics: Dental Alloys; Humans; Materials Testing; Orthodontic Appliance Design; Orthodontic Brackets; Orthodontic Wires; Stainless Steel; Surface Properties; Torque; Torsion, Mechanical
PubMed: 19852662
DOI: 10.2319/080508-352.1 -
European Journal of Orthodontics Mar 2023Bracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Bracket failure increases the treatment time of orthodontic therapy and burdens patients with unnecessary costs, increased chair time, and possible new appointments.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the bond failures of different orthodontic materials based on the results of available clinical studies.
SEARCH METHODS
A systematic search of clinical trials was performed in the Cochrane, Embase, and Pubmed databases with no limitations. The list of investigated techniques contained conventional acid-etch primer (CM-AEP), self-etch primer (SEP), self-cure resin (SCR), and simple or resin-modified glass ionomer (RM-GIC) materials and procedures.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Clinical studies reporting the failure rate of bonded brackets after using direct adhesive techniques on buccal sites of healthy teeth were included.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Bracket failure rates from eligible studies were extracted by two authors independently. Risk ratios (RRs) were pooled using the random-effects model with DerSimonian-Laird estimation.
RESULTS
Thirty-four publications, involving 1221 patients, were included. Our meta-analysis revealed no significant difference in the risk of bracket failures between SEP and CM-AEP. After 6, 12, and 18 months of bonding, the values of RR were 1.04 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.67-1.61], 1.37 (95% CI, 0.98-1.92), and 0.93 (95% CI, 0.72-1.20), respectively. At 18 months, bracket failure was 4.9 and 5.2% for SEP and CM-AEP, respectively. Heterogeneity was good or moderate (I2 < 42.2%). The results of RM-GIC at 12 months indicated a 57% lower risk of bracket failure using SCR as compared with RM-GIC (RR: 0.38; 95% CI, 0.24-0.61). At 18 months, bracket failures for SCR and RM-GIC were 15.8 and 36.6%, respectively (RR: 0.44; 95% CI, 0.37-0.52, I2 = 78.9%), demonstrating three to six times higher failure rate than in the case of etching primer applications.
LIMITATIONS
A major limitation of the present work is that the included clinical trials, with no exceptions, showed variable levels of risk of bias. Another possible problem affecting the outcome is the difference between the clustering effects of the split mouth and the parallel group bracket allocation methods.
CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
The results revealed no significant difference between SEP and CM-AEP up to 18 months after application. RM-GIC had much worse failure rates than acid-etching methods; additionally, the superiority of SCR over RM-GIC was evident, indicating strong clinical relevance.
REGISTRATION
Prospero with CRD42020163362.
Topics: Humans; Time Factors; Dental Bonding; Orthodontic Brackets; Resin Cements
PubMed: 36222731
DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjac050