J. Orthod.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Winchester, L. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Winchester, L. J.

British Journal of Orthodontics, Vol 19, 109-116, Copyright © 1992 by British Orthodontic Society

ARTICLES

A comparison between the old Transcend and the new Transcend series 2000 bracket

LJ Winchester
Orthodontic Department, Institute of Dental Surgery, U.M.D.S., London.

The shear/peel and tensile/peel bond strengths of the original Transcend and the new Transcend series 2000 bracket were determined using two different light-cured composites, Prismafil (high filler) and Heliosit (low filler). Predominant sites of failure were recorded for each bracket with each cement in each mode of testing. Transcend series 2000 produced higher bond strengths than Transcend in shear/peel, but were significantly weaker in tensile/peel testing. Heliosit generally produced higher bond strengths than Prismafil. Enamel fractures were observed with Transcend in both modes of testing when bonded with Heliosit, but not with Transcend series 2000 when bonded with Heliosit. The new Transcend series 2000 brackets should only be removed in tensile/peel mode as suggested by the manufacturers, due to their very high bond strengths in shear.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1992 British Orthodontic Society.