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 Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Basudan, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Al-Emran, S. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Basudan, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Al-Emran, S. E.
Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 28, No. 3, 231-236, September 2001
© 2001 British Orthodontic Society


Scientific Section

The Effects of In-office Reconditioning on the Morphology of Slots and Bases of Stainless Steel Brackets and on the Shear/Peel Bond Strength

Aisha M. Basudan and Suliman E. Al-Emran

P.O. Box 22490, Riyadh 11426, Kingdom of Saudia Arabia

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the effect of five in-office bracket reconditioning methods on: (i) bracket slot width and interwing gap measurements; (ii) the appearance of the bracket bases under scanning electron microscope (SEM), and; (iii) shear/peel bond strength (SPBS).

Setting: Ex vivo study.

Method: One hundred and twenty-five brackets were initially bonded and were divided into five experimental groups and reconditioning by the following methods: (i) adhesive grinding using green stone (Gp II); (ii) sandblasting (Gp III); (iii) direct flaming (Gp IV); (iv) using the BigJane machine (Gp V), and; (v) application of Buchman method (Gp VI).

Outcomes: Distortion of the brackets. Scanning electron miscropy of three representative specimens from each group. The remaining brackets were rebonded, then shear/peel forces to failure were measured (SPBS).

Results: The ANOVA and multiple comparison test exhibited a statistical, but not clinical, significant increase in the bracket measurements of Group VI. There was a significant reduction (28%) in the SPBS of Group II. Under the SEM, the wire mesh structure was maintained; however, the amount of adhesive remnants greatly varied among the groups.

Conclusions: Although none of the in-office reconditioning methods employed adversely affected the bracket base and/or the bracket measurements, reconditioning with a green stone was not effective. Sandblasting method and direct flaming are recommended because of simplicity and time-saving advantages.

Key words: Bracket Base, Bracket Recycling, Bracket Slot, In-office Reconditioning, Stainless Steel Brackets.

Notes

E-mail: aisha_basudan{at}yahoo.com







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 British Orthodontic Society.