THE INFLUENCE OF ORTHODONTIC BRACKET BASE DIAMETER AND MESH SIZE ON BOND STRENGTH

Main Article Content

Gauravardhan Kulkarni
Shailly Nimbark
Sushila Sah
Resham Irshad
Nandita Gautam

Keywords

Metal Base, Bracket Base Diameter, Bond Strength

Abstract

Introduction- To enhance the retention of the adhesive to the metal base of orthodontic brackets, various chemical and mechanical retentive designs have been suggested.
Methodology- A total of 40 extracted human molars were collected and stored in a solution of 0.1% (wt/vol) thymol. The criteria for tooth selection included intact buccal enamel, no history of any pretreatment with chemical agents, eg, hydrogen peroxide, no cracks due to the presence of the extraction forceps, and no caries. Two types of brackets were used in this study. Twenty Ovation metal bracket series with a double-mesh base (Super-mesh) and an 81.50 gauge.
Results- The descriptive statistics for the two bracket types compared are presented in Table 2. The mean shear bond strength was 5.2 ± 3.9 MPa for the double-mesh brackets and 5.8 ± 2.8 MPa for the single-mesh brackets. The t-test comparisons indicated that these values were not significantly different from each other. The ARI scores comparison indicated that both bracket types had similar bracket failure modes and were not significantly different from each other.
Conclusion- The results indicated that the single- and double-mesh bracket bases evaluated in this study provided comparable shear bond strengths and bracket failure modes.

Abstract 121 | Pdf Downloads 83

References

1. Sorel O, El Alam R, Chagneau F, Cathelineau G. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil and laser-structured base re- tention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2002;122: 260–266.
2. Droese V, Diedrich P. The tensile bonding strength of metal plas- ma-coated bracket bases. Fortschr Kufer Orthop. 1992;53:142– 152.
3. Smith DC, Maijer R. Improvements in bracket base design. Am J Orthod. 1983;83:277–281.
4. Cucu M, Driessen CH, Ferreira PD. The influence of orthodontic bracket base diameter and mesh size on bond strength. Swed Dent J. 2002;57:16–20.
5. Regan D, van Noort R. Bond strength of two integral bracket base combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil-mesh. Eur J Orthod. 1989;11:144–153.
6. Thanos CE, Munholland T, Caputo AA. Adhesion of mesh-base direct-bonding brackets. Am J Orthod. 1979;75:421–430.
7. MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113:276–281.
8. Smith NR, Reynolds IR. A comparison of three bracket bases: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod. 1991;18:29–35.
9. Middleton J, Hubsch P, Kralj, Knor J, Jones ML. Numerical in- vestigation of fixed orthodontic brackets. Proceedings of the In- stitution of Mechanical Engineers. Part II. J Eng Med. 2000;214: 311–323.
10. Knox J, Kralj B, Hubsch P, Middleton J, Jones ML. An evaluation of the quality of orthodontic attachment offered by single and double mesh bracket bases using finite element method of stress analysis. Angle Orthod. 2001;71:149–155.
11. Knox J, Hubsch P, Jones ML, Middleton J. The influence of bracket base design on the strength of bracket-cement interface. J Orthod. 2000;27:249–254.
12. Matasa CG. In search of a better bond: state of the art. The Or- thodontic Materials Insider. 2003;15:1–3.
13. Matasa CG. Do adhesives and sealants really seal the bracket’s pad? II. Surface tension. The Orthodontic Materials Insider. 2003;15:4–10.
14. Maijer R, Smith DC. Variables influencing the bond strength of metal orthodontic bracket bases. Am J Orthod. 1981;79:20–34.