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


     

Journal of Orthodontics, Vol. 31, No. 1, 34-40, March 2004 doi:10.1179/146531204225011355
© 2004 British Orthodontic Society
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
Right arrow Citation Map
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 Thind, B. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, C. H.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Thind, B. S.
Right arrow Articles by Lloyd, C. H.

Article

An ex vivo assessment of gingivally offset lower premolar brackets

B. S. Thind, C. J. Larmour, D. R. Stirrups and C. H. Lloyd

University of Dundee Dental School, Dundee, UK

Address for correspondence: B. S. Thind, Unit of Dental and Oral Health, Orthodontics Section, Dundee Dental School, Park Place, University of Dundee, Dundee DD1 4HN, UK. Email: bikram_chaman{at}yahoo.com

Objectives: To compare the force to failure of standard premolar brackets to that of gingivally offset brackets and evaluate the site of bond failure between the two bracket types through the use of the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI).

Design: An ex vivo study.

Setting: Dental Materials Science Laboratory, Dundee Dental School, Dundee.

Materials and methods: Forty extracted lower premolar teeth (caries free, extracted as part of orthodontic treatment, all donors living in a non-fluoridated area), divided into two equal size sample groups, as follows: Group 1: Victory SeriesTM (3M Unitek, Monrovia CA, USA) lower premolar brackets bonded to buccal surfaces with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia CA). Group 2: Victory SeriesTM Gingivally Offset Bicuspid Brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia CA) bonded to buccal surfaces with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia CA). Force was applied in the occluso-gingival direction using an Instron Model 4469 Universal Testing Machine (Instron Ltd, High Wycombe, UK) operating at a cross-head speed of 0.5 mm/min and its value at failure determined. Following debond, the site of bond failure and ARI were recorded.

Outcome: Force to failure, site of bond failure and adhesive remnant index.

Results: The Weibull analysis gave higher values for the force to failure at 5% level (200 v. 159 N) and at all other levels of probability of failure for the gingivally offset bracket. The non-parametric survival analysis using Gehan–Wilcoxon tests with Breslow’s algorithm (p < 0.0001) showed significant difference in force to failure between bracket types. Chi-square tests showed no significant (p = 0.55) relationship between the site of bond failure and the bracket types.

Conclusion: Ex vivo testing suggests that there is a significant difference in the force to failure between gingivally offset and standard lower premolar brackets when force application is from an occluso-gingival direction. The site of failure (as given by the ARI) is insensitive to bracket types and force to failure.

Key words: Dentistry, orthodontics, orthodontic bracket bonding, gingival offset brackets






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 British Orthodontic Society.