COMPARATIVE EVALUATION OF BOND STRENGTH AND ARI BETWEEN STAINLESS BRACKETS AND MONOCRYSTALLINE BRACKETS AT VARIOUS CURING DISTANCES
Main Article Content
Keywords
bond strength, ARI scores, curing distance, monocrystalline brackets, stainless steel brackets
Abstract
Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the shear bond strength of stainless steel brackets and radiance plus ceramic brackets by curing at varying distances of 0mm, 5mm, 10mm using high-intensity light cure unit and also to evaluate the adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores at the site of bond failure.
Material & Methodology: 120 premolars were procured. 60 stainless steel brackets and 60 radiance plus brackets were referred to as groups A and B, respectively. Group A consisted of stainless steel bracket which were subdivided into group A1, group A2, and Group A3 based on the light curing distance of 0mm, 5mm, and 10mm, and similarly group B were subdivided into group B1, B2, and B3 based on the curing distances. The brackets were bonded to the tooth surface after etching the enamel with 37% of phosphoric acid (D-tech) and using Transbond XT adhesive. The brackets were bonded to the tooth surface. Curing was done using 3M ESPE ELIPAR light curing unit of 1200millwatt/cm sq intensity. Debonding was done using Instron Universal Testing Machine to check for the shear bond strength (SBS). The debonded brackets were subjected to a stereomicroscope of 20X magnification to check the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) and the results obtained were tabulated and statistical analysis was done.
Results :The shear bond strength (MPa) for group A1, group A2, group A3 were 23.06±1.83, 20.56±2.13, 14.09±2.52 respectively and for groups B1, B2, B3 were 31.38±1.54, 28.29±1.36 ,24.46±2.03 respectively. It was found that group B has superior bond strength compared with group A at all distances and it was statistically significant.According to the ARI evaluation, at 0mm distance the bond failure for both the groups were observed at bracket adhesive interface and at 5mm and 10mm distances the bond failure was observed at the enamel adhesive interface
Conclusion: The shear bond strength (SBS) of the radiance plus bracket was found superior than the stainless steel brackets, and the bond strength obtained at all three distances for both brackets was clinically accepted. The ARI at 0mm exhibited bond at the enamel adhesive interface for both brackets and at 5mm and 10mm, it exhibited bond at the bracket adhesive interface.
References
2. Radiance Plus brackets exhibited high shear bond strength values at all the distances, but the pattern was similar as the distance of the curing light to the bracket base increased. The shear bond strength was decreased.
3. When the shear bond strength was compared between the stainless steel bracket and the Radiance Plus bracket, the Radiance Plus brackets showed superior bond strength values. This might be due to the transparent nature of the bracket , which allows the curing light to pass through the bracket surface
4. Increasing the distance of the curing tip reduces the risk of cross contamination
5. Adhesive remnant index evaluation for the stainless brackets at 0mm distance exhibited bond interface between enamel adhesive interface, and at 5mm and 10mm distances the bond interface was observed between the bracket and the adhesive interface. When the Adhesive Remnant Index is evaluated in the Radiance Plus brackets surface at 0 mm, the bond interface was between the enamel and adhesive interface and the bond interface was between the adhesive and the bracket interface at 5mm and 10 mm distances. This might be due to the transparent nature of the bracket leading to the passage of the curing light through the bracket and assisting in excessive bonding between bracket adhesive interface.
Refrences :
1. Buanocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res 1955; 34: 849-853
2. Ramya Raghu. Clinical and Operative Dentistry- Principals and Practice, 2nd edition.329-34
3. Light LEDC. Elipar. :19–20: 3M UNITEK
4. Khadijah A. Turkistani, Precautions and recommendations for orthodontic settings during the COVID-19 outbreak: A review, AJODO, 2020 158(2):175-181
5. Cacciafesta V, Sfondrini MF, Scribante A, Boehme A, Jost-Brinkmann PG. Effect of light-tip distance on the shear bond strengths of composite resin. Angle Orthod. 2005;75(3):386–91.
6. Amit Jain et al. Light Cure Tip Distance and Shear Bond Strength : Does It have any Clinical Significance ? :JIOH 2013;47(September):135–42
7. Alper OZ et al. Assessment of the Confidence of the Adhesive Remnant Index Score With Different Methods. Turkish J Orthod. 2013;26(July 2013):149–53.
8. Ygreddy et al. The Shear Bond Strength Of Metal And Ceramic Brackets: An InvitroComparitive Study. JCDR:2013,July vol (7)1496-1497
9. Calipa.J et al. Comparison of bond strength of metal and ceramic brackets bonded with conventional and high-power LED light curing units.JDT, 2016;vol (13), no 6.
10. Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1990;97:121-5
11. Gwinnett.A.J. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. AJODO:1988,98:346-8.
12. Gronberg K, Rossouw PE, Miller BH, Buschang P. Distance and time effect on shear bond strength of brackets cured with a second-generation light-emitting diode unit. Angle Orthod [Internet]. 2006;76(4):682–8
13. Keuntaeketal.A stainless steel bracket for orthodontic application. .EJO 2005;235-237
14. Sfondrini MF, Cacciafesta V, Scribante A, Boehme A, Jost-Brinkmann PG. Effect of light-tip distance on the shear bond strengths of resin-modified glass ionomer cured with high-intensity halogen, light-emitting diode, and plasma arc lights. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop. 2006;129(4):541–6.
15. Chaconas, Angelo and Gary. Bond strength of ceramic brackets with various bonding systems. Angle Orthod 1990;61:35-42
16. Cornelia Speer, DorotheeZimny, Werner Hopfenmueller and Eva Andrea Holtgrave. Bond Strength of Disinfected Metal and Ceramic Brackets: An In Vitro Study. Angle Orthod 2005;75:836–842
17. Odeegard.J et al. Shear Bond Strength Of Metal Brackets Compared With A New Ceramic Bracket: AJODO,1988:94:201-6
18. Mohamed JP, Babu P, Kumar MS. Evaluating the Type of Light Transmittance in Mono Crystalline, Poly Crystalline and Sapphire Brackets- An Invitro Spectrofluorometer Study. 2016;10(8):18–21
19. Gupta.AS, Gautam R, Kalia A. Evaluation of different brands of LED curing devices for bonding metallic orthodontic brackets. Dentistry, 2014;4:9
20. Garma NMH, Sc M. The effect of light intensity and curing time of light emitting diode on shear bond strength using different types of bracket â€s materials. 2012;24(4):132–8
21. Eliades T, Viazis AD, Eliades G, Prairie E. Bonding of ceramic brackets to enamel: Morphologic and STM cultural considerations. 1991;369–75
22. Bordeaux JM, Moore RN, Bagby MD. Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs. 2000;552–60
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
All articles published in JPTCP are licensed under Copyright Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Dr Marie Asha Ambroise
Senior Lecturer, Department Of Orthodontics &Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Sri Venkateshwaraa Dental College,13 A, Pondicherry Villupuram Main Road,Ariyur, Puducherry 605102Ph no :8754173078
Dr Pradeep Babu Kommi
Consultant orthodontist, Apollo dental clinic, Nellore, Andhra Pradesh.Ph no: 9908645099
Dr. M. Senthil Kumar
Former Professor, Indira Gandhi Institute Of Dental Sciences,Pondicherry.Consultant orthodontist, Ph No: 9443050679
Dr Nanda Kumar. A
Professor, Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics,Meenakshi Ammal Dental College, Chennai.Ph : 9444066099
Dr Abdul Khader.K
Dr Abdul Khader K, Assistant Professor, Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Mahatma Gandhi Postgraduate Institute Of Dental Sciences, Ph: 9787127503