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


     


This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Knox, J.
Right arrow Articles by Middleton, J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Knox, J.
Right arrow Articles by Middleton, J.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 27, No. 3, 249-254, September 2000
© 2000 British Orthodontic Society


Scientific Section

The Influence of Bracket Base Design on the Strength of the Bracket–Cement Interface

Jeremy Knox, B.D.S., M.SC.D., PH.D., M.ORTH., R.C.S., F.D.S. (ortH.)*, Pierre Hubsch, DipL.-LnG., PH.D.{dagger}, Malcolm L. Jones, B.D.S., M.SC.D., PH.D., F.D.S., D.OrtH. R.C.S.* and John Middleton, B.SC., M.SC., F.R.S.A.{dagger}

* Departments of Dental Health and Development and
{dagger} Basic Dental Science, University of Wales College of Medicine, Dental School, Heath Park, Cardiff CF4 4XY, UK

Abstract

The objectives of the study were to isolate the bracket–cement interface, and to determine the influence of bracket base morphology and orthodontic bonding agent chosen on strength of adhesion.

The bracket bases evaluated included 60, 80, and 100 single mesh bases, a double mesh base, and the DynalockTM, and Mini TwinTM bases. The strength of interface provided by each of these bases with ConciseTM, TransbondTM, Right OnTM, and non-encapsulated Fuji Ortho LCTM cements, was measured in tension and recorded in Mega Pascals.

The single-mesh bases performed well with either Concise or Right On (11•88–22•72 MPa) and, other than the 80-mesh bracket, relatively poorly with Transbond (2•18–5•15 MPa). With Fuji Ortho LC, the single mesh bases performed well (6•05–12•19 MPa). The double mesh base performed well with Right On (13•75 MPa), and reasonably well with Concise, Transbond, and Fuji Ortho LC (6•00–9•20 MPa). The Dynalock and Mini Twin Bases performed fairly well with all cements (8•87–17•16 MPa).

It was concluded that the orthodontic bonding agent selected would appear to largely determine the bond strength achieved with a particular bracket base design. A definite trend was difficult to identify in this study, and it appeared that certain combinations of bracket base and bonding agent performed optimally. Particular base designs may allow improved adhesive penetration or improved penetration of curing light. Alternatively, the dimension and distribution of resin/cement tags prescribed by one base could promote a stress distribution that is better resisted by a particular adhesive.

Key words: Orthodontic Bracket, Bonding Agent, Bond Strength




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
J. Orthod.Home page
P. Banks and T. V. Macfarlane
Bonded versus banded first molar attachments: a randomized controlled clinical trial
J. Orthod., June 1, 2007; 34(2): 128 - 136.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2000 British Orthodontic Society.