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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 290-297 |
| Number of pages | 8 |
| Journal | American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics |
| Volume | 106 |
| Issue number | 3 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - 1994 |
| Externally published | Yes |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -