An easily removable ceramic bracket?

The use of ceramic brackets in fixed appliance orthodontics has highlighted several problems, amongst which are the problems of enamel damage and possible trauma to the patient during debonding. A ceramic bracket has recently been developed with a polycarbonate laminated base (Ceramaflex) claiming to make debond much easier, although there are no independent data to substantiate this claim. The in-vitro bond strength of these ceramic brackets to enamel was tested and compared with metal standard Edgewise brackets. The bond produced with the Ceramaflex bracket was similar in magnitude, but less reliable. No fracture of the bracket or damage to enamel was seen during debonding. Debonding of these brackets was easy to carry out, but it is possible that more debonds may occur during treatment than with the use of metal brackets.     

Shear bond strength of a new dental adhesive used to bond brackets to unetched enamel

The aims of the present study were to measure the shear bond strength of a new multipurpose dental adhesive, IntegraCem, for direct bonding of stainless steel and ceramic brackets to unetched enamel, and to determine the mode of bond failure. Both stainless steel and ceramic brackets (GAC) were bonded with IntegraCem to unetched extracted human premolars. After bonding, the teeth were either stored in a water bath at 37 degrees C for 3 days or passed 2500 thermocycles from 6 to 60 degrees C. Debonding was then performed with a shearing force using an Instron universal testing machine. The force was recorded at bond failure. The results showed that the shear bond strength achieved was between 6.7 and 10.8 megapascals (MPa). Bond failure occurred at the enamel-adhesive interface, enabling more efficient enamel clean up. The shear bond strengths measured suggest that IntegraCem adhesive may be effectively used in orthodontic treatment.     

Evaluation of the debonding characteristics of 2 ceramic brackets: an in vitro study.

The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths and bond failure locations of 2 currently available orthodontic ceramic brackets. Forty polycrystalline ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and 40 monocrystalline ceramic brackets (Inspire, Ormco, Orange, Calif) were bonded to 80 extracted premolars with the same bonding system. All bonded specimens were placed in distilled water for 42 hours at 37 degrees C followed by thermal cycling for 700 complete cycles. Forty ceramic brackets, 20 of each type, were tested on a universal testing machine to determine the shear force levels required to debond them. Forty ceramic brackets were removed with the debonding pliers recommended by the manufacturers. All teeth were examined under an optical microscope, and the adhesive remnant index was used to assess the bond failure locations. The mean shear bond strength of the Clarity brackets was 21.67 +/- 5.19 MPa, and the mean shear bond strength of the Inspire brackets was 20.32 +/- 8 MPa. The mean shear bond strengths of both brackets were higher than those considered clinically optimal. Most of the brackets (85% of Clarity and 75% of Inspire) tested on the machine failed at the bracket-adhesive interface. One premolar bonded with an Inspire bracket had enamel fracture upon debonding. Most of the brackets (90% of Clarity and 95% of Inspire) debonded with pliers failed at the bracket-adhesive interface. No enamel damage was evident in any specimen when the brackets were removed with the appropriate pliers. The results indicate that the safest way to remove ceramic brackets with respect to reducing the chance of enamel damage is to use the debonding technique specifically designed for each.     

Enamel abrasion from ceramic orthodontic brackets under an artificial oral environment

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the potential enamel abrasion on contact with stainless steel and various ceramic orthodontic brackets under a simulated oral environment. Three groups of eight lower premolar ceramic brackets and one group of eight stainless steel brackets were used from four different manufacturers. An upper premolar was brought in contact with the bracket bonded to a lower premolar tooth and subjected to a lateral excursion type of movement by the artificial oral environment. A constant load of approximately 2 lb was used for the masticatory force. The rate of chewing was 1 cycle/sec. The teeth were subjected to 15, 60, and 100 masticatory cycles. The before-and-after occlusal surfaces of the upper premolars were compared by means of a computerized profiling system and the enamel volume loss was calculated. Qualitative changes, such as rate of enamel wear, were examined visually by means of computer graphics and the scanning electron microscope. Abrasion scores (mean +/- SD) in mm3 were 0.015 +/- 0.01 from the metal brackets and 0.135 +/- 0.103, 0.255 +/- 0.242, and 0.581 +/- 0.524 from the three ceramic bracket groups. The abrasion scores were significantly different at p less than 0.05. Ceramic brackets caused significantly greater enamel abrasion than stainless steel brackets. Artificial mouth in vitro testing gave a good indication of clinical performance of orthodontic brackets.     

How to ... debond Clarity brackets with ease

Debonding ceramic brackets has been difficult due to problems with enamel fractures, enamel tears and patient discomfort. New brackets have weaker bases and the debonding technique has changed, with a recommendation that a pair of Mathieu needle holding pliers is used with Clarity brackets.     

Clinical evaluations on thermal versus mechanical debonding of ceramic brackets.

Removal of ceramic orthodontic brackets, utilizing orthodontic pliers, has resulted in significant patient discomfort, enamel trauma and bracket shattering. The purpose of this clinical study was to compare the safety and efficacy of standard orthodontic mechanical debonding with a new Dentaurum thermal debonding device. Fifteen healthy patients with maxillary or mandibular premolars scheduled for extraction completed this study. One week after bracket placement, removal was accomplished by mechanical pliers or a thermal debonding device. Both procedures were performed on each patient in random order. Efficacy was monitored using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on impressions made before and at selected times after debonding. Extracted teeth were subjected to histological evaluation to check potential injury to the pulp. Comfort levels were determined by questionnaires. Data was analyzed by Chi square. No irritation or overt changes were reported or observed. Significant differences (p less than 0.05) favoring the thermal devices were determined from the questionnaire on comfort during the removal process. Evaluation of SEM surfaces found significantly less (p less than 0.05) changes produced with the thermal debonding device, compared to mechanical removal. No histological evidence of pulpal injury related to product treatments were determined. The Dentaurum thermal debonding device was judged less traumatic by patients and produced minimal enamel surface changes compared to a mechanical debonding plier.     

Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of bond strength with polyacrylic acid and phosphoric acid enamel conditioning

The purpose of this study was to compare in vitro shear bond strength with three different enamel surface preparations: (1) 37% phosphoric acid etch, (2) sulfated polyacrylic acid etch with removal of crystals by vigorous rinsing and (3) polyacrylic acid etch with crystal growth. Forty extracted human premolar teeth were divided into four groups of ten. Ceramic brackets were bonded to teeth in each of three groups. The fourth group used was bonded with metal brackets and a phosphoric acid enamel preparation. The same lightly filled resin cement was used for all groups. A shearing force was applied to the teeth. The results demonstrated that the shear force needed to debond with ceramic brackets was 21% greater than the shear force with metal brackets. The polyacrylic acid crystal growth group had shear bond strength values approximately one half as great as the phosphoric acid etch group when ceramic brackets were used. Bond failures in the phosphoric acid etch group were at the bracket/resin interface with the bulk of the resin remaining on the tooth compared with the polyacrylic acid crystal growth group in which the bond failure was at the enamel resin interface. Enamel fractures were not found when healthy nonrestored teeth were subjected to the shearing force. In a preliminary test using phosphoric acid etch and teeth with compromised enamel (large restorations involving three or more surfaces), half of the teeth fractured during debonding. The study demonstrated that a polyacrylic acid conditioning of the enamel surface produces different retentive surfaces, depending on the presence or absence of crystal growth.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

Electrothermal debracketing. Part I. An in vitro study

The contemporary techniques of bracket removal require shearing or compression forces. The force necessary to separate the bracket from the tooth is sufficient to cause deformation of the bracket and, in some cases, is capable of damaging the tooth. An alternative to conventional bracket removal is electrothermic debracketing (ETD). ETD is the technique of removing bonded brackets from enamel surfaces with a cordless battery device that generates heat. The heat is transferred to the bracket by a blade that is placed in the bracket slot. The bracket is firmly held by a thumb-activated lock-on arm of the ETD unit. When the heat applied to the bracket is transferred to and deforms the adhesive-bracket interface, the bracket can be gently lifted from the enamel surface without distortion of the bracket or excessive force to the underlying enamel. Part I of this study measured the in vitro rise in temperature at the pulpal wall when ETD is used. These data are correlated with established primate threshold temperatures that have been reported to cause pulpal pathosis. All ETD procedures in the sample elicited pulpal wall temperatures that were significantly below the primate baseline. When water spray was used in conjunction with ETD, the mean ultimate increase in pulpal wall temperature was less than 1 degree C.     

Thermal image analysis of electrothermal debonding of ceramic brackets: an in vitro study.

This study used modern thermal imaging techniques to investigate the temperature rise induced at the pulpal well during thermal debonding of ceramic brackets. Ceramic brackets were debonded from vertically sectioned premolar teeth using an electrothermal debonding unit. Ten teeth were debonded at the end of a single 3-second heating cycle. For a further group of 10 teeth, the bracket and heating element were left in contact with the tooth during the 3-second heating cycle and the 6-second cooling cycle. The average pulpal wall temperature increase for the teeth debonded at the end of the 3-second heating cycle was 16.8 degrees C. When the heating element and bracket remained in contact with the tooth during the 6-second cooling cycle an average temperature increase of 45.6 degrees C was recorded.     

不同方法去除不同材质正畸托槽及粘接剂的对比实验研究

目的 研究不同方法去除不同材质正畸托槽及残余粘接剂对釉质表面的影响,评价一种适宜高效的去粘接方法,为正畸临床工作提供指导.方法 取因正畸原因拔除的人上颌前磨牙56颗,分别粘接金属或陶瓷托槽,使用2种方法去除正畸托槽后再使用3种不同方法去除残余粘接剂并对牙面抛光.分别检测粘接剂残留指数(ARI),操作时间及牙面粗糙度指数,并使用扫描电镜观察釉质表面微观结构.结果 托槽去除钳及釉质凿组去除托槽后的ARI无显著性差异(P>0.05).金刚砂车针+矽粒子组去除粘接效率最高,Super-Snap抛光碟组次之,矽粒子组最低.矽粒子组处理后釉质表面形貌及粗糙度与天然釉质最接近,Super-Snap抛光碟组次之,金刚砂车针+矽粒子组最差.使用相同方法去除金属托槽和陶瓷托槽无显著性差异(P>0.05).结论 托槽去除钳较釉质凿去除托槽更安全,矽粒子去粘接效果最好但效率最低,Super-Snap抛光碟去粘接效果及效率均处可接受范围,金刚砂车针不适于去粘接.采用相同方法去除不同材质托槽及粘接剂对牙面的影响类似.     

An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket

The objectives of the present study were to measure and compare the bond strength and failure sites of a currently available ceramic bracket (Transcend 3M-Unitek) with the new metal reinforced ceramic bracket (Clarity 3M-Unitek) and to evaluate the amount of composite left on the tooth using the Adhesive Remnant Index in the teeth that were debonded with pliers recommended for this purpose. In addition, the presence or absence of enamel damage after debonding was also assessed. One hundred and twenty extracted premolar teeth were divided into 4 groups of 30 each. Two groups of 30 teeth had Transcend 6000 brackets bonded, and the other 2 groups had Clarity brackets bonded. Shear bond strength was carried out on 30 Transcend 6000 brackets and 30 Clarity brackets, whereas the other 2 groups of 30 teeth bonded with Transcend 6000 and Clarity brackets were debonded with debonding pliers recommended by the manufacturer of both ceramic brackets. The mean shear bond strength of the Clarity brackets was 13.27 MPa, whereas that of the Transcend 6000 was 21.19 MPa. Both brackets failed mostly at the bracket-adhesive interface (75%), indicating a possible reduction of the chances of enamel damage. Six of the premolars, bonded with Transcend 6000 brackets and debonded with the plier, showed an increase in the number or length of enamel cracks as evaluated by an optical microscope (Micro-Vu); one premolar, bonded with Clarity brackets and debonded with the pliers, showed an increased enamel crack length. Gross enamel damage, assessed by enamel dislodgment, was not evident in any specimen. Results of this study suggest that the new metal reinforced ceramic bracket (Clarity) may be recommended for clinical use because of its acceptable shear bond strength and possible reduced chances of enamel damage during bracket removal.     

Laser-aided debonding of orthodontic ceramic brackets.

The removal of ceramic brackets from the enamel surface by means of laser heating was investigated with the use of CO2 and YAG lasers. The two bracket types investigated were polycrystalline alumina and monocrystalline alumina. The average torque force necessary to break the adhesive between the polycrystalline ceramic brackets and the tooth was lowered by a factor of 25 when the brackets were illuminated with a CO2 laser beam of 14 watts for 2 seconds. All polycrystalline brackets debonded with the CO2 laser resulted in a complete bracket detachment without bracket failure. The average torque force needed to debond monocrystalline brackets was lowered by a factor of 5.2 when illuminated with a laser setting of 7 watts. Monocrystalline brackets cracked along the bracket slot in 2 of 10 cases. Debracketing without laser heating resulted in a slightly higher incidence of bracket failure (12 of 50). Nevertheless, no visible damage to the enamel surface was observed. Advantages of the laser-aided bracket-removal techniques include the following: The heat produced is localized and controlled; the debracketing tool is essentially "cold"; and the method can be used for removal of various types of ceramic brackets, regardless of their design.     

Comparison of the debonding characteristics of two innovative ceramic bracket designs.

Two new ceramic brackets-one designed with a metal-lined arch wire slot and the other with an epoxy resin base-have been recently introduced. The new brackets are thought to combine the esthetic advantages of ceramics and the functional advantages of debonding metal brackets. The purpose of this study was to compare the following: 1) the shear bond strength of the 2 brackets, and 2) the bond failure location when the brackets are debonded with pliers. Sixty-one Clarity (3M Unitek) collapsible ceramic brackets and 66 MXi (TP Orthodontics, Inc) brackets were bonded to the teeth with the same bonding system. The Zwick Universal Test Machine (Zwick Gm bH & Co) was used to determine the shear bond strength force levels needed to debond the brackets. The appropriate pliers also were used to debond both types of brackets to determine the mode of bond failure that will be encountered clinically. After debonding, all the teeth and brackets were examined with 10x magnification. Any adhesive that remained after the bracket removal was assessed according to the Adhesive Remnant Index. The findings indicated that the shear bond strength of the Clarity ceramic brackets was significantly greater than that of the MXi ceramic brackets. However, both brackets exhibited forces that were adequate for clinical use. The Adhesive Remnant Index scores for both the shear test and the plier debonding indicated a similar bond failure pattern when the 2 ceramic brackets were compared with each other. This suggests that, when these brackets are debonded with the Weingart (Ormco) and ETM (Ormco) pliers, there was a greater tendency for most of the adhesive to remain on the enamel surface. In conclusion, the most efficient method to debond the MXi ceramic bracket is by placing the blades of the ETM 346 pliers between the bracket base and the enamel surface. On the other hand, the most efficient method of debonding the Clarity bracket is by using the Weingart pliers and applying pressure to the tiewings. When the 2 ceramic brackets were debonded as recommended here, most of the residual adhesive remained on the enamel surface, a pattern similar to the one observed previously with metal brackets. The failure at the bracket-adhesive interface decreases the probability of enamel damage but necessitates the removal of more residual adhesive after debonding.     

Problems associated with ceramic brackets suggest limiting use to selected teeth.

Ceramic brackets became popular as esthetic appliances which could withstand orthodontic forces and resist staining better than plastic brackets. Several clinical complications may arise from the use of ceramic brackets. They include the effects debonding can have on underlying enamel, attrition of teeth occluding with ceramic brackets and increased friction in the orthodontic appliance. Solutions to these problems are discussed which indicate the need for careful selection of teeth to be bonded with ceramic brackets.     

Adhesive performance of precoated brackets after expiration

Objective:To evaluate adhesive performance in terms of debonding forces of precoated metal and ceramic brackets 4 years after expiration.Materials and Methods:Buccal and lingual surfaces of embedded extracted maxillary premolars were etched with 34% Tooth Conditioner Gel (Dentsply Caulk, Milford, Del), rinsed, and dried. Transbond MIP (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) was applied prior to placing adhesive precoated brackets (APC II Victory stainless steel and APC Plus Clarity ceramic brackets, 3M Unitek). The preexpiration brackets had 29–35 months before, and the postexpiration brackets were 45–52 months past, their expiration dates. Sample size was 17–21 per group. Debonding forces were determined by subjecting the bonded brackets to a shear force in a universal testing machine. Debonding forces were compared using two-way ANOVA. Debonded surfaces were examined under a stereomicroscope to determine failure modes, which were compared using the chi-square test.Results:No statistically significant difference was found in debonding forces (P  =  .8581) or failure modes (P  =  .4538) between expired and unexpired brackets. Metal brackets required statistically significantly higher debonding forces than did ceramic brackets (P  =  .0001). For both expired and unexpired brackets, failure modes were mostly cohesive in the adhesive layer for ceramic brackets, and mixed between adhesive and cohesive failure in the adhesive layer for metal brackets.Conclusions:Adhesive precoated brackets did not have any reduction in enamel-adhesion properties up to 4 years after their expiration date. Extended shelf life testing for precoated dental brackets may be worth considering.     

机械法去除国产陶瓷托槽安全性的研究

目的使用去托槽钳去除两种底板设计的国产多晶体氧化铝陶瓷托槽,评价对牙齿安全性的影响。方法选择离体上、下颌各15颗双尖牙,随机分为3组。实验组为国产沟槽底板（3条横沟）和网格底板（3×3网格）陶瓷托槽,对照组为临床常用多晶体氧化铝陶瓷托槽（Crystaline IV）。使用37%液体磷酸和京津釉质粘接剂分别粘接上述3种托槽,在0.9%生理盐水中室温保存24h。使用去托槽钳及WDW3050型微机控制电子万能试验机龈向施加剪切力,检测去除强度、粘接剂残留指数（ARI）及托槽断裂个数,并以立体显微镜评价釉质表面损伤情况。结果国产沟槽底板、网格底板陶瓷托槽及Crystaline IV的去除强度分别为18.49±4.00MPa、17.89±4.13MPa和17.62±4.51MPa,三者间无显著性差异。主要去除部位均在粘接剂内部,托槽断裂个数分别为7个、7个和6个。各有一颗使用国产沟槽底板陶瓷托槽和Crystaline IV的牙齿在立体显微镜下发现明显的釉质缺损。结论对于唇面呈弧形的牙体,使用去托槽钳龈向施加剪切力去除国产多晶体氧化铝陶瓷托槽时,去除强度大,易发生托槽断裂,且可能并发釉质剥脱,并不是理想方法。     

Marginal adaptation of ceramic inserts after cementation

The advantage of using ceramic inserts is to prevent major drawbacks of composite resins such as polymerization shrinkage, wear and microleakage. This in vitro study evaluated the marginal adaptation of two approximal ceramic insert systems after cementation to the cavities opened with ultrasonic tips. Proximal cavities with margins in enamel were prepared in 20 intact molars using ultrasonic tips (SONICSYS approx tips [microtorpedo size #2 and #3]; Siplus Instrument approximal [U-shaped]). Inserts of similar sizes (n=10) from two systems corresponding to the ultrasonic tips were placed in the cavities (SONICSYS Inlay; SDS-Inlay system), one on the mesial side and the other on the distal side of the same molar. Following cementation and thermocycling (5000 cycles, between 5-55 degrees C), cement thickness was measured at the buccal, lingual walls and pulpal floors of the proximal boxes under light microscope (x150). The mean cement thickness values recorded for SONICSYS inserts #2 (25 microm) was not significantly different (p>0.05) from that of SDS inserts of similar size (26 microm). There was a significant difference (p<0.05) in cement thickness values between SONICSYS #3 inserts (34 microm) and SDS inserts of similar size (23 microm). Comparison of mean values between the ceramic insert systems examined revealed that marginal adaptation was better at the buccal and lingual proximal walls than those at the pulpal floor in the SDS system, however, there was no difference for SONICSYS at both sizes. Ceramic inserts placed in cavities prepared with ultrasonic tips provide clinically acceptable marginal quality.     

Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets.

The aims of the current study were to evaluate the bond strength of a new metallic orthodontic bracket with a laser structured base (Discovery, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), and its effects on the site of bond failure and on the behavior of the enamel after debonding. One hundred and twenty recently extracted human premolars were bonded with 1 of 2 types of mechanical interlock base metal brackets: a standard system with a simple foil mesh pad (Minitrim, Dentaurum) and the Discovery bracket. A resin-based, chemically activated bonding system, No-mix (Dentaurum), was used as the adhesive system in this trial. The teeth were immersed in normal saline solution at 37 degrees C for 7 days before debonding and were randomly assigned to different subgroups. A testing machine was used to evaluate tensile and fatigue bond strengths for both brackets. After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive on the bracket and enamel detachment were assessed according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and the enamel detachment index (EDI) with a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer. The scores obtained from the ARI and the EDI showed that the laser structured base brackets had a significantly higher bond strength (mean +/- SD: 17.1 +/- 0.7 MPa) that was 2 times higher than that observed with the simple foil mesh brackets (mean +/- SD: 8.7 +/- 1.4 MPa) (P <.001). Bond failure with the laser structured base was at the enamel-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 3 in 80% of the teeth, and bond failure with the simple foil mesh base was at the bracket-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 0 in 75% of the teeth. A small area, with less than 10% of the enamel damaged (1 on the EDI) and 1.5 microm in thickness, was observed for both brackets. The laser structured base bracket's bond strength was double that of the simple foil mesh bracket but was equally safe and did not induce significant enamel detachment.     

Laboratory evaluation of a compomer and a resin-modified glass ionomer cement for orthodontic bonding

The mean shear debonding force of stainless steel orthodontic brackets with microetched bases bonded with either a compomer or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement was assessed. In addition, the amount of cement remaining on the enamel surface following bracket removal was evaluated. Finally, survival time of orthodontic brackets bonded with these materials was assessed following simulated mechanical stress in a ball mill. Debonding force and survival time data were compared with those obtained for brackets bonded with a chemically cured resin adhesive, a light-cured resin adhesive, and a conventional glass ionomer cement. There were no significant differences in mean shear debonding force of brackets bonded with the compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, chemically cured resin adhesive, or the light-cured resin adhesive. Brackets bonded with a conventional glass ionomer cement had a significantly lower mean shear debonding force than that recorded for the other materials. The Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) mode score indicated that significantly less cement remained on the enamel following debonding of brackets cemented with resin-modified or conventional glass ionomers compared with other adhesives. The median survival time for brackets cemented with the compomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, chemically cured resin, or light-cured resin were significantly longer than for brackets cemented with conventional glass ionomer. The compomer and the resin-modified glass ionomer adhesive appear to offer viable alternatives to the more commonly used resin adhesives for bracket bonding.     

Comparisons of different debonding techniques for ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Part I. Background and methods

Techniques for removing metal orthodontic attachments are, for the most part, not as effective with ceramic brackets because the properties of ceramic brackets differ greatly from those of the conventional metal orthodontic brackets. Currently available ceramic brackets are composed of aluminum oxide crystals in either a polycrystalline or monocrystalline form that has a low fracture toughness compared with that of stainless steel. Metal brackets will deform 20% under stress before fracturing, whereas ceramic brackets will deform less than 1% before failing. The purpose of this study was (1) to evaluate the debonding characteristics of three different types of ceramic brackets when removed by techniques recommended by the manufacturers; (2) to evaluate and compare the conventional, ultrasonic, and electrothermal bracket-removal techniques, and (3) to evaluate and compare the mean enamel loss from removal by high-speed bur, by slow-speed bur, and by the ultrasonic method. In the first phase of the investigation, 140 teeth (70 maxillary central incisors and 70 third molars) were bonded with one of three types of ceramic brackets. Three different debonding methods were tested--(1) the conventional method recommended by the manufacturer (either pliers or wrench), (2) an ultrasonic method that employed specially designed tips, and (3) an electrothermal method involving an apparatus that transmits heat to the bracket. In each of the test groups, five variables were evaluated during and after bracket removal: (1) the incidence of bracket failure, (2) the amount of adhesive remaining after bracket removal, (3) the site of bond failure, (4) the debonding time for each technique, and (5) enamel damage resulting from bracket removal.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)