Effect of bracket type on halitosis,periodontal status,and microbial colonization

Objective: To determine the effect of bracket type on halitosis, periodontal status, and microbial colonization.Materials and Methods:Forty-six patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment (age 11–16 years) were selected from the orthodontic department of Suleyman Demirel University. Patients were divided into two groups with random distribution of brackets; 23 patients were treated with self-ligating brackets (group SLBs), the others with conventional brackets (group CBs). Halitosis measurements and periodontal and microbial records were obtained before the placement of brackets (T0), 1 week later (T1), and 5 weeks after bonding (T2). Periodontal parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing index (BOP), were obtained from all the bonded teeth. Halitosis measurements were performed at the same time. Microbial samples were obtained from the buccal surfaces of all the bonded teeth. Data were analyzed by using a repeated-measurement analysis of variance test for the comparison of parameters between groups and times.Results:Periodontal parameters and halitosis results were higher in the CBs group than in the SLBs group (P < .05). In the SLBs group, halitosis and BOP values revealed no pronounced changes between T1 and T2 (P > .05). Intra- and intergroup comparisons showed that there were no statistically significant differences for microbial colonization between all the time intervals (P > .05).Conclusion:Bracket type has an effect on halitosis and periodontal status. Therefore, self-ligating brackets may be advised in order to prevent patients from developing halitosis and to increase the likelihood of good oral hygiene during orthodontic treatment.     

Maxillary canine retraction with self-ligating and conventional brackets: A randomized clinical trial

Objective:To measure space closure during the retraction of upper permanent canines with self-ligating and conventional brackets.Materials and Methods:Fifteen patients who required maxillary canine retraction into first premolar extraction sites as part of their orthodontic treatment completed this study. In a random split-mouth design, the retraction of upper canines was performed using an elastomeric chain with 150 g of force. The evaluations were performed in dental casts (T0, initial; T1, 4 weeks; T2, 8 weeks; T3, 12 weeks). The amount of movement and the rotation of the canines as well as anchorage loss of the upper first molars were evaluated.Results:There was no difference between self-ligating and conventional brackets regarding the distal movement of upper canines and mesial movement of first molars (P > .05). Rotation of the upper canines was minimized with self-ligating brackets (P < .05).Conclusion:Distal movement of the upper canines and anchorage loss of the first molars were similar with both conventional and self-ligating brackets. Rotation of the upper canines during sliding mechanics was minimized with self-ligating brackets.     

Effects of self-ligating and conventional brackets on halitosis and periodontal conditions

Objective:To evaluate the effects of fixed orthodontic treatment with steel-ligated conventional brackets and self-ligating brackets on halitosis and periodontal health.Materials and Methods:Sixty patients, at the permanent dentition stage aged 12 to 18 years, who had Angle Class I malocclusion with mild-to-moderate crowding were randomly selected. Inclusion criteria were nonsmokers, without systematic disease, and no use of antibiotics and oral mouth rinses during the 2-month period before the study. The patients were subdivided into three groups randomly: the group treated with conventional brackets (group 1, n  =  20) ligated with steel ligature wires, the group treated with self-ligating brackets (group 2, n  =  20), and the control group (group 3, n  =  20). The periodontal records were obtained 1 week before bonding (T1), immediately before bonding (T2), 1 week after bonding (T3), 4 weeks after bonding (T4), and 8 weeks after bonding (T5). Measurements of the control group were repeated within the same periods. The volatile sulfur components determining halitosis were measured with the Halimeter at T2, T3, T4, and T5. A two-way repeated measures of analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to compare the groups statistically.Results:No statistically significant group × time interactions were found for plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and halitosis, which means three independent groups change like each other by time. The risk of tongue coating index (TCI) being 2 was 10.2 times higher at T1 than at T5 (P < .001). Therefore, the probability of higher TCI was decreased by time in all groups.Conclusions:The self-ligating brackets do not have an advantage over conventional brackets with respect to periodontal status and halitosis.     

Debris and friction of self-ligating and conventional orthodontic brackets after clinical use

Objective:To compare the degree of debris and friction of conventional and self-ligating orthodontic brackets before and after clinical use.Materials and Methods:Two sets of three conventional and self-ligating brackets were bonded from the first molar to the first premolar in eight individuals, for a total of 16 sets per type of brackets. A passive segment of 0.019 × 0.025-inch stainless steel archwire was inserted into each group of brackets. Frictional force and debris level were evaluated as received and after 8 weeks of intraoral exposure. Two-way analysis of variance and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were applied at P < .05.Results:After the intraoral exposure, there was a significant increase of debris accumulation in both systems of brackets (P < .05). However, the self-ligating brackets showed a higher amount of debris compared with the conventional brackets. The frictional force in conventional brackets was significantly higher when compared with self-ligating brackets before clinical use (P < .001). Clinical exposure for 8 weeks provided a significant increase of friction (P < .001) on both systems. In the self-ligating system, the mean of friction increase was 0.21 N (191%), while 0.52 N (47.2%) was observed for the conventional system.Conclusion:Self-ligating and conventional brackets, when exposed to the intraoral environment, showed a significant increase in frictional force during the sliding mechanics. Debris accumulation was higher for the self-ligating system.     

Comparison of root resorption between self-ligating and conventional preadjusted brackets using cone beam computed tomography

Objective:To compare the magnitude of external apical root resorption (EARR) of incisors in patients undergoing the initial phase of orthodontic treatment with two sets of brackets.Materials and Methods:According to the results of the power analysis for sample size calculation, 19 Angle Class I patients (anterior crowding: 3 to 5 mm; mean age: 20.6 years) were included in the study and randomly divided into two groups: group I (n  =  11, self-ligating brackets) and group II (n  =  8, conventional preadjusted brackets). The degree of EARR was detected in 152 upper and lower incisors by using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans and a three-dimensional program (Dolphin 11.5, Dolphin Imaging & Management Solutions, Chatsworth, Calif) with 25% level of sensitivity. The CBCT scans were obtained before (T1) and 6 months after initiation of treatment (T2). Differences between and within groups were analyzed by nonpaired and paired t-test, respectively, with 5% significance level.Results:Significant differences were found for both groups between T1 and T2. However, no differences in the degree of EARR were detected between the groups studied.Conclusions:Although EARR has occurred in all teeth evaluated, the bracket design (self-ligating or conventional) did not demonstrate any influence on the results observed.     

Effect of orthodontic treatment on periodontal health of periodontally compromised patients:: A randomized controlled clinical trial

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of fixed orthodontic treatment on periodontal parameters in periodontally compromised adult orthodontic patients.Materials and MethodsThis was a prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. Thirty-six periodontally compromised adult patients (mean age: 29.67 ± 4.8 years) were randomly allocated to either test (perio-ortho) or control group (perio). After periodontal stabilization in both groups, orthodontic treatment was started in the test group, whereas the control group remained on periodontal maintenance only. Evaluation and comparison of clinical parameters (plaque index [PI]; gingival index [GI]; bleeding on probing [BOP]; probing depth [PD]; clinical attachment level [CAL]) of both groups was assessed at three time intervals: T0 (base line), T1 (at start of orthodontic treatment), and T2 (1 year after start of orthodontic treatment). Radiological parameters (alveolar bone levels [ABL]) were recorded using CBCT at T1 and T2.ResultsIntragroup analysis showed statistically significant improvement in all clinical and radiological periodontal parameters in both groups (P ≤ .05). Intergroup comparison revealed improvement in the periodontal parameters was not statistically significant between the groups (P ≥ .05). Subgroup analysis showed reduction in the number of moderate and severe periodontitis sites in both groups with significant more gains in ABL in the test group compared to the control group.ConclusionsOrthodontic treatment after periodontal stabilization does not have any detrimental effect on periodontal health in adult periodontally compromised orthodontic patients and may add to the benefits achieved by periodontal treatment alone.     

Treatment time,outcome, and anchorage loss comparisons of self-ligating and conventional brackets

Objective:To compare the treatment time, outcome, and anchorage loss among orthodontic patients treated by self-ligating brackets (SLBs) and conventional brackets (CBs).Materials and Methods:A retrospective cohort study compared 34 patients (SLB group) treated by SmartClip brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) to 35 patients (CB group) treated by conventional preadjusted Victory series brackets (3M Unitek) and ligated by stainless steel wire ligatures. Pretreatment (T1) and posttreatment (T2) lateral cephalograms were traced and analyzed using Pancherz sagittal-occlusion analysis to obtain skeletal and dental changes in the maxilla and the mandible. The dental cast models were assessed by the Peer Assessment Rating (PAR) Index for the treatment outcomes.Results:The mean treatment time for SLBs (19.19 months) did not show a statistically significant difference from 21.25 months of CBs; the treatment time and pretreatment PAR scores were strongly correlated. There was no difference in anchorage loss between the SLB and CB groups. There were significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. The lingual inclination of the mandibular incisors in the CB group was 3.62° more than in the SLB group (P < .01).Conclusions:The treatment time and anchorage loss are not influenced by the type of bracket used. There are significant dental and skeletal changes among adolescent orthodontic patients regardless of the bracket used. There is significantly greater lingual inclination of mandibular incisors in the CB group than in the SLB group.     

Torque Expression in Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets: A Systematic Review

Objective:To evaluate the quantitative effects on torque expression of varying the slot size of stainless steel orthodontic brackets and the dimension of stainless steel wire, and to analyze the limitations of the experimental methods used.Materials and Methods:In vitro studies measuring torque expression in conventional and self-ligating stainless steel brackets with a torque-measuring device, with the use of straight stainless steel orthodontic wire without second-order mechanics and without loops, coils, or auxiliary wires, were sought through a systematic review process.Results:Eleven articles were selected. Direct comparison of different studies was limited by differences in the measuring devices used and in the parameters measured. On the basis of the selected studies, in a 0.018 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 31 degrees with a 0.016 × 0.016 inch stainless steel archwire to 4.6 degrees with a 0.018 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. In a 0.022 inch stainless steel bracket slot, the engagement angle ranges from 18 degrees with a 0.018 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire to 6 degrees with a 0.021 × 0.025 inch stainless steel archwire. Active stainless steel self-ligating brackets demonstrate an engagement angle of approximately 7.5 degrees, whereas passive stainless steel self-ligating brackets show an engagement angle of approximately 14 degrees with 0.019 × 0.025 inch stainless steel wire in a 0.022 inch slot.Conclusions:The engagement angle depends on archwire dimension and edge shape, as well as on bracket slot dimension, and is variable and larger than published theoretical values. Clinically effective torque can be achieved in a 0.022 inch bracket slot with archwire torsion of 15 to 31 degrees for active self-ligating brackets and of 23 to 35 degrees for passive self-ligating brackets with a 0.019 × 0.025 inch stainless steel wire.     

A prospective randomized split-mouth study on pain experience during chairside archwire manipulation in self-ligating and conventional brackets

Objective:To investigate patient discomfort during archwire engagement and disengagement in patients treated with self-ligating and conventional brackets using a split-mouth design.Materials and Methods:Eighteen consecutive patients (15 female, 3 male; age: 22.2 ± 6.4 years) who requested treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances were randomly assigned for bonding with SmartClip self-ligating brackets on one side of the dentition and conventional standard edgewise brackets on the other. During the course of treatment, patients rated the discomfort experienced during every archwire engagement and disengagement using a numeric rating scale. Results were evaluated for round and rectangular nickel titanium and rectangular stainless steel, titanium molybdenum, and Elgiloy archwires. Patients also rated their overall experience retrospectively for both bracket systems.Results:Regardless of archwire type, disengagement was rated as being significantly more painful on the SmartClip side (P  =  .027). For rigid, rectangular archwires, engagement and disengagement were rated as being significantly more painful on the SmartClip side (P  =  .031; P  =  .004). Retrospective ratings favored conventional brackets beyond ratings recorded during treatment.Conclusion:Engagement and disengagement of rigid rectangular archwires caused more pain with SmartClip self-ligating brackets than with conventional ones. Careful archwire manipulation and patience during full alignment are essential for limiting chairside pain. Low pain levels will help ensure treatment satisfaction and compliance.     

Role of lubricants on friction between self-ligating brackets and archwires

Objective:To evaluate the effect of different lubricants on friction between orthodontic brackets and archwires.Materials and Methods:Active (Quick, Forestadent) and passive (Damon 3MX, Ormco) self-ligating brackets underwent friction tests in the presence of mucin- and carboxymethylcellulose (CMC)–based artificial saliva, distilled water, and whole human saliva (positive control). Dry friction (no lubricant) was used as the negative control. Bracket/wire samples (0.014 × 0.025 inch, CuNiTi, SDS Ormco) underwent friction tests eight times in a universal testing machine.Results:Two-way analysis of variance showed no significant interaction between bracket type and lubricant (P  =  .324). Friction force obtained with passive self-ligating brackets was lower than that for active brackets (P < .001). Friction observed in the presence of artificial saliva did not differ from that generated under lubrication with natural human saliva, as shown by Tukey test. Higher friction forces were found with the use of distilled water or when the test was performed under dry condition (ie, with no lubricant).Conclusion:Lubrication plays a role in friction forces between self-ligating brackets and CuNiTi wires, with mucin- and CMC-based artificial saliva providing a reliable alternative to human natural saliva.     

Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer

Objective:To comparatively assess the failure rate of adhesive precoated (APC) self-ligating metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques: self-etching primer (SEP) and conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM).Materials and Methods:Fifty-seven patients with complete permanent dentition were included in this study. A total of 1140 APC self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, SEP (Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek) and CM (37% phosphoric acid) were used in alternate quadrants. All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth. The number, site, and date of first-time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment (mean, 22 months). The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (P < .05). The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface.Results:The bond failure rates were 2.97% and 2.18% for the CM and SEP, respectively. No statistically significant difference in failure rates was found between the groups. The bond failure sites were predominantly at the enamel-adhesive interface in both groups.Conclusion:This long-term in vivo study showed that the combined use of SEP and the APC bracket system can be used effectively for bonding brackets after pumicing the enamel surfaces in clinical orthodontics.     

Active and passive self-ligation—a myth?

Objective:To compare the frictional behavior of several self-ligating brackets with that of normal brackets both with and without tipping force-moments and in combination with different archwire dimensions.Materials and Methods:The resistance to sliding (RS) of seven self-ligating brackets, a conventional bracket, and a ceramic bracket with a low-friction clip were evaluated in combination with three different archwires and tipping force-moments of 0 and 10 Nmm. The center of rotation for the measurements was set within the center of the bracket or with a 10-mm offset. Resistance to sliding was measured using an Instron 3344 at a cross-head speed of 10 mm/min at a temperature of 36°C.Results:Without a tipping moment, RS increased with the active self-ligating brackets with increasing archwire size. No RS was found for any of the passive self-ligating brackets. The 10-Nmm tipping moment resulted in more RS and was similar for all bracket and archwire combinations. RS was approximately doubled when the center of rotation was located at the bracket rather than with a 10-mm offset.Conclusions:RS between brackets and archwires is highly dependent on the experimental setup. Different setups can result in contradictory results. Almost 1 N of traction force is lost in RS when a moment of 10 Nmm is placed at a rotational center 10 mm from the bracket.     

Effect of the bracket types on microbial colonization and periodontal status

Objective:To evaluate the effect of different bracket types on the levels of Streptococcus mutans (SM) and Lactobacillus (LB) in saliva, in plaque, and on the periodontal condition.Materials and Methods:Forty patients aged 14 to 16 years, who had Angle Class I malocclusion with minimal crowding, were nonsmokers, were without systematic disease, and did not use antibiotics or oral mouth rinses during the 3-month period before the study were randomly selected. The patients were subdivided into two groups with random allocation of bracket type: conventional brackets (CB; Avex Mx, OPAL orth.) with steel wire ligature or self-ligating brackets (SLB; F1000, Leone S.p.A.). Microbial and periodontal records were obtained before bonding (T₁) and 1 month after bonding (T₂). Microbial samples were collected from the stimulated saliva and the plaque from the labial surfaces of the upper and lower lateral incisors. To estimate the number of colony-forming units of SM and LB, Dentocult SM and LB kits were used. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and pocket depth (PD) values were recorded to evaluate the periodontal condition. Paired t-test and Mann-Whitney U-test were used to compare the groups statistically.Results:No significant differences occurred in SM or LB colonization between the groups. In the SLB group, PI, GI, and PD values increased significantly (P < .05). A greater increase was found in PD value in the SLB group (0.98 mm) compared with the CB group (0.04 mm; P < .05).Conclusions:The F1000 SLB do not have an advantage over Avex Mx CB with respect to periodontal status and colonization of SM and LB.     

Orthodontic treatment efficiency with self-ligating and conventional edgewise twin brackets: A prospective randomized clinical trial

Objective:To conduct a prospective and randomized study of the efficiency of orthodontic treatment with self-ligating edgewise brackets (SL; Time2 brand, American Orthodontics) and conventional edgewise twin brackets (CE; Gemini brand, 3M).Materials and Methods:One hundred consecutive patients were randomized to treatment with either SL or CE brackets. The participants were treated by one of three specialists in orthodontics and with continuous instructions alternately by five orthodontic assistants according to our normal treatment routine (ie, modified 0.022″ MBT preadjusted edgewise technique). The treatments were evaluated in terms of overall treatment time, number of visits, and treatment outcome using the Index of Complexity, Outcome and Need (ICON). The number of emergency appointments, number of archwires, overjet, relative space, and extractions at treatment start were noted.Results:After dropouts, the analyzed material consisted of 44 patients treated with SL (mean age 15.3 years, mean ICON 60.7, 70.4% female) and 46 patients treated with CE (mean age 15.0 years, mean ICON 56.5, 71.7% female). There were no statistically significant differences between the SL and CE groups in terms of mean treatment time in months (20.4 vs 18.2), mean number of visits (15.5 vs 14.1), mean ICON scores after treatment (13.2 vs 11.9), or mean ICON improvement grade (7.9 vs 9.1).Conclusion:Orthodontic treatment with SL brackets does not reduce treatment time or number of appointments and does not affect posttreatment ICON scores or ICON improvement grade compared with CE brackets.     

Effect of time and pH on physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and wires

Objective:To test the hypothesis that treatment time, debris/biofilm, and oral pH have an influence on the physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and arch wires.Materials and Methods:One hundred twenty metal brackets were evaluated. They were divided into four groups (n  =  30) according to treatment time: group C (control) and groups T12, T24, and T36 (brackets recovered after 12, 24, and 36 months of treatment, respectively). Rectangular stainless-steel arch wires that remained in the oral cavity for 12 to 24 months were also analyzed. Dimensional stability, surface morphology, composition of brackets, resistance to sliding of the bracket-wire set, surface roughness of wires, and oral pH were analyzed. One-way analysis of variance, followed by a Tukey multiple comparisons test, was used for statistical analysis (P < .05).Results:Carbon and oxygen were shown to be elements that increased expressively and in direct proportion to time, and there was a progressive increase in the coefficient of friction and roughness of wires as a function of time of clinical use after 36 months. Oral pH showed a significant difference between group T36 and its control (P  =  .014).Conclusions:The hypothesis was partially accepted: treatment time and biofilm and debris accumulation in bracket slots were shown to have more influence on the degradation process and frictional force of these devices than did oral pH.     

Comparison of orthodontic space closure using micro-osteoperforation and passive self-ligating appliances or conventional fixed appliances:: A randomized controlled trial

ObjectivesTo examine the effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) on the space closure rate using passive self-ligating or conventional brackets.Materials and MethodsThis was a two-arm parallel randomized controlled trial undertaken at the outpatient department of a dental college. There were 60 participants (30 women and 30 men) who fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Both the study and control groups were subjected to MOPs throughout the period of space closure. MOPs were repeated every 28 days. The experimental group (mean age 19.5 ± 1.66 years) was bonded with passive self-ligating brackets while the control group (mean age 19.9 ± 1.13 years) was bonded with conventional brackets. Both groups were examined and compared for rate of space closure. An evaluation was conducted for both groups until the entire extraction space was closed and confirmed by evaluation of a tight contact between the canine and the second premolar using a piece of dental floss.ResultsBefore the initiation of retraction, all initial criteria were similar between the two groups (P > .05). No difference was observed between the two groups in the rate of space closure (P > .05).ConclusionsMOP in conjunction with passive self-ligation does not increase the rate of orthodontic space closure when compared with MOP used with conventional brackets.     

Short-Term Influence of Lingual Orthodontic Therapy on Microbial Parameters and Periodontal Status: A Preliminary Study

Objective:To perform a preliminary study of the short-term effect of fixed, customized lingual orthodontic appliances on periodontal and microbial parameters.Materials and Methods:The sample comprised 20 subjects (6 males and 14 females) with a mean age of 22.3 years ± 8.6 years. Before (T₀) and 4 weeks after placement (T₁) of custom-made lingual appliances on the lower teeth only, plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured. A 16S rRNA-based polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method was used to detect Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa) and Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) in the crevicular fluid. To compare periodontal parameters on bonded lingual (testing) and unbonded palatal (control) and labial (control) sites between T₀ and T₁, the Wilcoxon test was applied.Results:On the lingual aspects of bonded teeth, a significant increase of BOP (T₀: 23.4 ± 22.5%; T₁: 46.2 ± 23.5%; P  = .001) and PI (T₀: 0.3 ± 0.3; T₁: 1.0 ± 0.7; P  =  .001) was observed, but no significant changes for PPD (T₀: 2.1 ± 0.4 mm; T₁: 2.2 ± 0.3 mm; P  =  .286) were found. On control sites, no significant changes were recorded for any periodontal parameter. Aa was found in 25% of the patients at baseline (5 subjects) and in 35% of the patients at T₁ (2 additional positive subjects), whereas Pg was found in 5% of the cohort at T₀ and at T₁ (same patient).Conclusions:Even in the short term, insertion of fixed lingual appliances induced a worsening of periodontal parameters restricted to bonded lingual sites.     

The effect of two different bracket types on the salivary levels of S mutans and S sobrinus in the early phase of orthodontic treatment

Objective:To determine the difference in the levels of Streptococcus mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated saliva in orthodontic patients with different bracket types (stainless steel and esthetic brackets) using polymerase chain reaction and cultivation method.Materials and Methods:Thirty-two patients, aged 13 to 30 years, were selected following these criteria: 1) orthodontic treatment indication, 2) systemic health, and 3) no tobacco and antibiotic consummation for three months prior to the commencement of the study. Patients were divided into two groups according to the bracket type; 16 patients formed the conventional bracket group (stainless steel brackets), and 16 patients formed the esthetic bracket group (plastic brackets). The levels of S mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated whole saliva samples were collected prior to fixed orthodontic appliance placement (T1) and 12 weeks after placement (T2), as were the Decayed, Missing, and Filled Surface Index (DMFS) and Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Mann-Whitney, Wilcoxon, and chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis.Results:Statistical analysis (chi-square test) showed no difference in S mutans and S sobrinus counts among patients with different brackets at either T1 or T2. There was no difference in total bacteria counts after fixed orthodontic appliance placement.Conclusion:The number of colony-forming units of S mutans and S sobrinus in stimulated saliva samples does not seem to be significantly different between patients with stainless steel brackets and patients with plastic brackets.     

Effects of surface treatment and artificial aging on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to four different provisional restorations

Objective:To evaluate the combined effects of material type, surface treatment, and thermocycling on the bond strength of orthodontic brackets to materials used for the fabrication of provisional crowns.Materials and Methods:Four materials were included in this study (ProTemp, Trim Plus, Trim II, and Superpont C+B). Sixty cylindrical specimens (1 × 3 cm) were prepared from each material and equally divided into three groups. The first group was ground with silica carbide paper, the second was polished with pumice, and the last group was sandblasted with 50-µm aluminum oxide particles. Stainless-steel maxillary central incisor brackets (Victory Series, 3M) were bonded to the provisional material specimens with Transbond XT light-cured composite resin, and half of the specimens from each group were thermocycled 500 times in 5°C and 55°C water baths. Then the brackets were debonded with shear testing, and the results were statistically analyzed by three-way analysis of variance and Tukey''s multiple-comparison tests at α  =  0.05. Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) was also identified.Results:Before and after thermocycling, ProTemp materials showed the highest shear bond strength with orthodontic brackets (10.3 and 13.1 MPa, respectively). The statistical analysis indicated an interaction among the three independent variables (P < .05) and statistically significant differences in bond strength among provisional materials (P < .001), surface treatments (P < .001), and thermocycling (P < .05). According to the ARI, most groups demonstrated adhesive failure.Conclusions:The provisional material type, surface treatment, and artificial aging have a significant effect on bond strength. Sandblasting treatment exerts a beneficial effect on shear bond strength.