Ceramic bracket bonding: A comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets

Stephen W. Merrill, Larry J. Oesterle, Charles B. Hermesch

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether shear, tensile, or torsional forces were best suited for debonding ceramic brackets. Four commercially available ceramic brackets were evaluated. The brackets included both polycrystalline and monocrystalline types with either chemical or mechanical retention in the bracket bases. The ceramic brackets were bonded to one hundred and twenty bovine teeth, using Concise. The brackets were stressed until bond or brcket failure occurred with either shear, tensile, or torsional forces on the Instron machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure was recorded. Starfire TMB brackets fractured 30% of the time during shear debonding, whereas, Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 brackets exhibited no bracket fractures. The shear bond strengths of Quasar 1000 brackets were significantly higher than Starfire TMB brackets. Starfire TMB was the only bracket type that exhibited no bracket fractures with tensile force. Tensile bond strengths were not significantly different between the four bracket types. In torsion, Lumina was the only bracket type that did not exhibit any bracket failures. Shear mechanically retained brackets. Torsional bond strength of chemically retained brackets was significantly higher than mechanically retained brackets. The results suggest Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 are best removed with shear or tensile forces. Starfire TMB is best removed with tensile forces.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)290-297
Number of pages8
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume106
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Mechanical Torsion
Ceramics
Shear Strength
Tensile Strength
Tooth
Transcend

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthodontics
  • Surgery
  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Ceramic bracket bonding : A comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets. / Merrill, Stephen W.; Oesterle, Larry J.; Hermesch, Charles B.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 106, No. 3, 1994, p. 290-297.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ba6ea6e4689046d799d32230709b13ee,
title = "Ceramic bracket bonding: A comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether shear, tensile, or torsional forces were best suited for debonding ceramic brackets. Four commercially available ceramic brackets were evaluated. The brackets included both polycrystalline and monocrystalline types with either chemical or mechanical retention in the bracket bases. The ceramic brackets were bonded to one hundred and twenty bovine teeth, using Concise. The brackets were stressed until bond or brcket failure occurred with either shear, tensile, or torsional forces on the Instron machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure was recorded. Starfire TMB brackets fractured 30{\%} of the time during shear debonding, whereas, Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 brackets exhibited no bracket fractures. The shear bond strengths of Quasar 1000 brackets were significantly higher than Starfire TMB brackets. Starfire TMB was the only bracket type that exhibited no bracket fractures with tensile force. Tensile bond strengths were not significantly different between the four bracket types. In torsion, Lumina was the only bracket type that did not exhibit any bracket failures. Shear mechanically retained brackets. Torsional bond strength of chemically retained brackets was significantly higher than mechanically retained brackets. The results suggest Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 are best removed with shear or tensile forces. Starfire TMB is best removed with tensile forces.",
author = "Merrill, {Stephen W.} and Oesterle, {Larry J.} and Hermesch, {Charles B.}",
year = "1994",
doi = "10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70049-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "290--297",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Ceramic bracket bonding

T2 - A comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets

AU - Merrill, Stephen W.

AU - Oesterle, Larry J.

AU - Hermesch, Charles B.

PY - 1994

Y1 - 1994

N2 - The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether shear, tensile, or torsional forces were best suited for debonding ceramic brackets. Four commercially available ceramic brackets were evaluated. The brackets included both polycrystalline and monocrystalline types with either chemical or mechanical retention in the bracket bases. The ceramic brackets were bonded to one hundred and twenty bovine teeth, using Concise. The brackets were stressed until bond or brcket failure occurred with either shear, tensile, or torsional forces on the Instron machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure was recorded. Starfire TMB brackets fractured 30% of the time during shear debonding, whereas, Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 brackets exhibited no bracket fractures. The shear bond strengths of Quasar 1000 brackets were significantly higher than Starfire TMB brackets. Starfire TMB was the only bracket type that exhibited no bracket fractures with tensile force. Tensile bond strengths were not significantly different between the four bracket types. In torsion, Lumina was the only bracket type that did not exhibit any bracket failures. Shear mechanically retained brackets. Torsional bond strength of chemically retained brackets was significantly higher than mechanically retained brackets. The results suggest Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 are best removed with shear or tensile forces. Starfire TMB is best removed with tensile forces.

AB - The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether shear, tensile, or torsional forces were best suited for debonding ceramic brackets. Four commercially available ceramic brackets were evaluated. The brackets included both polycrystalline and monocrystalline types with either chemical or mechanical retention in the bracket bases. The ceramic brackets were bonded to one hundred and twenty bovine teeth, using Concise. The brackets were stressed until bond or brcket failure occurred with either shear, tensile, or torsional forces on the Instron machine. The maximum bond strength and the site of bond failure was recorded. Starfire TMB brackets fractured 30% of the time during shear debonding, whereas, Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 brackets exhibited no bracket fractures. The shear bond strengths of Quasar 1000 brackets were significantly higher than Starfire TMB brackets. Starfire TMB was the only bracket type that exhibited no bracket fractures with tensile force. Tensile bond strengths were not significantly different between the four bracket types. In torsion, Lumina was the only bracket type that did not exhibit any bracket failures. Shear mechanically retained brackets. Torsional bond strength of chemically retained brackets was significantly higher than mechanically retained brackets. The results suggest Quasar 1000, Lumina, and Transcend 2000 are best removed with shear or tensile forces. Starfire TMB is best removed with tensile forces.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028503486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028503486&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70049-4

DO - 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70049-4

M3 - Article

C2 - 8074094

AN - SCOPUS:0028503486

VL - 106

SP - 290

EP - 297

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 3

ER -