The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparison of Bond Strength of Brackets with Foil Mesh and Laser Structure Base using Light Cure Composite Resin: An in vitro Study

N Sanjay, KS Girish, RNG Rajesh, Rajath D Scindhia, Sujay G Kumar, Suchitra Rajesh

Citation Information : Sanjay N, Girish K, Rajesh R, Scindhia RD, Kumar SG, Rajesh S. Comparison of Bond Strength of Brackets with Foil Mesh and Laser Structure Base using Light Cure Composite Resin: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (12):963-970.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1789

Published Online: 01-12-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Background and objectives

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the bond strength of the laser-etched base bracket, site of bond failure, and evaluate for enamel remnants on the bracket base after debonding, when compared to foil mesh base bracket.

Materials and methods

Sixty noncarious, human premolar extracted for the orthodontic treatment were used for this study. The teeth were randomly divided into two groups containing 30 teeth each, which were bonded with laser-etched base bracket and mesh base bracket using light cure resin. The tensile and mechanical bond strength was tested after 24 hours using TIRA. The forces recorded during debonding were measured in Newton and final readings were tabulated in megapascals (MPa).

After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive and enamel detachment on the bracket base were assessed according to adhesive remnant index (ARI) and enamel detachment index (EDI) using stereomicroscope and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer.

Results

The laser-etched base bracket showed statistically significant higher results than mesh base bracket. Mann-Whitney test indicated that laser-etched base bracket had significantly higher tensile bond strength of 8.47 MPa (SD ± 0.84), fatigue strength of 7.75 MPa (SD ± 0.79) compared to mesh base bracket with tensile bond strength of 5.53 Mpa (SD ± 0.89) and fatigue strength of 5.17 MPa (SD ± 1.15).

Adhesive remnant index score indicated that laser-etched base bracket had ARI score of 3 for most of the bracket, when compared to mesh base bracket. This was statistically significant.

Enamel detachment index scores indicated that less than 10% of enamel detachment occurred in both the types of brackets, which was not statistically significant.

Conclusion

Laser-etched base bracket showed superior bond strength, when compared to the foil mesh base bracket. The site of bond failure of these laser-etched base bracket was at the interface of enamel-adhesive and did not induce any significant enamel detachment. Thus, we can conclude that laser-etched base bracket is a promising step toward achieving an ideal bracket base design for successful bonding.

How to cite this article

Rajesh RNG, Girish KS, Sanjay N, Scindhia RD, Kumar SG, Rajesh S. Comparison of Bond Strength of Brackets with Foil Mesh and Laser Structure Base using Light Cure Composite Resin: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(12):963-970.


PDF Share
  1. Epoxy adhesion for orthodontic attachment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1965;51(12):901-912.
  2. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic filling materials to enamel surface. J Dent Res 1955;34:849-863.
  3. Evaluation of fourteen directbonding orthodontic bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980;78:630-639.
  4. Jeiroudi Deformation of metal brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 1994;64(4):283-290.
  5. Corrosion of orthodontic bracket bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982 Jan;81(1):43-48.
  6. Shear strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988 Jul;94(1):200-206.
  7. Deformation of metal brackets: a comparative study. Angle Orthod 1994;64(4):283-290.
  8. Retentive shear strength of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1980 June;77(6):669-678.
  9. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1976;3:91-95.
  10. Bond strength of two integral bracketbase combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil-mesh. Eur J Orthod 1989;11:144-153.
  11. Variables influencing the bond strength of metal orthodontic bracket bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1981 Jan;79(1):20-34.
  12. Direct bonding metallic brackets: where are they heading? Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992 Dec;101(6):552-560.
  13. Improvement in bracket base design. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983 Apr;83(4):277-281.
  14. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and micro etched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1998 Mar;113(3):276-281.
  15. The influence of bracket base design on the strength of the bracket-cement interface. J Orthodon 2000;27:249-254.
  16. Bond strength of orthodontic direct—bonding cement-bracket systems as studied in vitro. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982 Feb;81(2):87-92.
  17. Residual debries and bond strength—is there a relationship. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988 Sept;94(3):222-223.
  18. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1979;75:121-137.
  19. Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and LASER—structured base retention brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:260-266.
  20. Bonding bases coated with porous metal powder: a comparison with foil mesh. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1983 Jan;83(1):1-4.
  21. In vitro bond strength of treated directbonding metal bases. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1985 Aug;88(2):133-136.
  22. Sven Bergland Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1984;85(4):333-340.
  23. The effect of adhesive system on tooth surfaces. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1971;59:67-75.
  24. Etching of deciduous teeth and young and old permanent teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop; 1980 Jul;78(10):99-108.
  25. Etching of young permanent teeth with acid gel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1982 Nov;82(5):379-383.
  26. Effects of enamel etching time on bond strength and morphology. J Clin Orthod 1985 Jan;(1):36-38.
  27. Crystal growth on the outer enamel surface—an alternative to acid etching. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1986 Mar;89:183-193.
  28. Tensile bond strengths of orthodontic bonding resin and attachments to etched enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1987 Sep;92(3):225-231.
  29. Effects of etchant concentration. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990 Nov;98(5):417-421.
  30. The effect of enamel preparation on the tensile bond strength of orthodontic composite resin. Angle Orthod 1992;62(4):21-28.
  31. The effects of different phosphoric acid concentrations on surface enamel. Angle orthod 1992;62(1):51-58.
  32. Effect of phosphoric concentration on bond strength. Angle Orthod 1994;64(5):377-382.
  33. The effect of etching time and debond interval upon the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets. Br J Orthod 1996;23:121-124.
  34. Enamel preparation for orthodontic bonding: a comparison between the use of a sand blaster and current techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997 Apr;111(4):366-73.
  35. Metallic bracket to enamel bonding with a photo polymerizable resin-reinforced glass ionomer Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:514-517.
  36. Tensile and shear strength of begg plastic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1975 Nov;9(11):694-697.
  37. Some factors affecting the bonding of orthodontic attachments to tooth surface. J Clin Orthod 1977 Nov;11(11):734-743.
  38. Adhesion of mesh base direct bonding brackets’. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1979;75:421-430.
  39. Bond strength of an integral bracket base combination—an in vitro study. Eur J Orthod 1984;6:267-276.
  40. Br J Orthod 1991;18:29-35.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.