Comparison of Bracket Failure Rate between Two Different Materials Used to Fabricate Transfer Trays for Indirect Orthodontic Bonding
Narayan B Kulkarni, Goyal Shrishtee Manoj
Bracket failure, Glue gun material, Indirect bonding, PLA filament, 3D printing pen, Transfer tray
Citation Information :
Kulkarni NB, Manoj GS. Comparison of Bracket Failure Rate between Two Different Materials Used to Fabricate Transfer Trays for Indirect Orthodontic Bonding. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (3):307-312.
Background: Various techniques have been advocated for over half a century for the fabrication of transfer trays for indirect orthodontic bonding. Authors have aimed to provide better light curing and accuracy of bracket positioning to avoid bracket failure and get the best possible results.
Aim: This study is aimed to compare bracket failure rate when transfer trays were fabricated with a glue gun material and polylactic acid (PLA) filament for an indirect bonding procedure.
Materials and methods: Customized transfer trays were fabricated using a glue gun material and PLA filament, and an indirect bonding procedure was performed. Bracket failure was assessed at regular intervals with adhesive remnant index (ARI) scoring, and reasons for bracket failure were assessed.
Results: Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was employed to test the normality of data. A Chi-square test was performed for the quantitative variables. Results showed higher bracket failure in the PLA transfer tray groups and in the mandibular arch, especially in the posterior region. Adhesive remnant index scores of 2 followed by 3 were prevalent, and the most common reason for bracket failure was an excessive force during PLA transfer tray retrieval followed by masticatory forces.
Conclusions: Both the transfer tray methods are effective for an indirect bonding procedure. Polylactic acid transfer trays showed more bracket failure as compared to glue gun transfer trays, especially in the mandibular posterior region due to excessive force applied during tray retrieval.
Clinical significance: This study aims to provide valuable information regarding the efficiency of various in-house methods of fabricating customized transfer trays and their effect on bracket failure rates.
Moskowitz EM, Knight LD, Sheridan JJ, et al. A new look at indirect bonding. J Clin Orthod 1996;30(5):277–281. PMID: 10356506.
Kasrovi PM, Timmins S, Shen A. A new approach to indirect bonding using light-cure composite. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(6):652–656. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70319-6.
White LW. A new and improved indirect bonding technique. J Clin Orthod 1999;33(1):17–23. PMID: 10535005.
Vashi N, Vashi B. An improved indirect bonding tray and technique. J Indian Orthod Soc 2008;42:19–23. DOI: 10.1177/0974909820080105.
Bhardwaj A, Belludi A, Gupta A, et al. Indirect bonding technique – a simplified novel technique. J Asian Pacific Orthod Soc 2011;2(3):1. DOI: 10.4103/2321-1407.118172.
Madhusudhan S, Laxmikanth SM, Shetty PC. A newly simplified indirect bonding technique. Indian J Dent Sci 2012;4(4):81–83.
Aileni KR, Rachala MR, Mallikarjun V, et al. Gum and gun: a new indirect bonding technique. J Indian Orthod Soc 2012;46(4_suppl1):287–291. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10021-1107.
Kulkarni NB, Goyal SM, Shah VD. 3D printing pen: a novel adjunct for indirect bonding. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021;22(8):964–968. PMID: 34753853.
Hocevar RA, Vincent HF. Indirect versus direct bonding: bond strength and failure location. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988;94(5):367–371. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90125-4.
Deahl ST, Salome N, Hatch JP, et al. Practice-based comparison of direct and indirect bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132(6):738–742. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2006.01.037.
Sinha PK, Nanda RS, Ghosh J. A thermal-cured, fluoride-releasing indirect bonding system. J Clin Orthod JCO 1995;29(2):97–100. PMID: 8617845.
Movahhed HZ, Øgaard B, Syverud M. An in vitro comparison of the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement and a composite adhesive for bonding orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2005;27(5):477–483. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cji051.
Joiner M. In-house precision bracket placement with the indirect bonding technique. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2010;137(6):850–854. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2009.04.023.
Zachrisson BU, Brobakken BO. Clinical comparison of direct versus indirect bonding with different bracket types and adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978;74(1):62–78. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90046-5.
Miles PG, Weyant RJ. A clinical comparison of two chemically-cured adhesives used for indirect bonding. J Orthod 2003;30(4):331–336. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/30.4.331.
Linklater RA, Gordon PH. Bond failure patterns in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123(5):534–539. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.s0889540602000252.
Khan H, Mheissen S, Iqbal A, et al. Bracket failure in orthodontic patients: the incidence and the influence of different factors. BioMed Res Int 2022;2022. DOI: 10.1155/2022/5128870.
Mavropoulos A, Karamouzos A, Kolokithas G, et al. In vivo evaluation of two new moisture-resistant orthodontic adhesive systems: a comparative clinical trial. J Orthod 2003;30(2):139–147. DOI: 10.1093/ortho/30.2.139.
Ahmed T, Rahman NA, Alam MK. Comparison of orthodontic bracket debonding force and bracket failure pattern on different teeth in vivo by a prototype debonding device. BioMed Res Int 2021;2021:6663683. DOI: 10.1155/2021/6663683.