The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 25 , ISSUE 9 ( September, 2024 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

The Effect of Thermocycling on the Shear Bond Strength of Flash-free Brackets and Healing Dynamics of Enamel Microcracks: An In vitro Study

Hanan Shamsan, Nehal F Albelasy, Dina S Farahat, Mohammad H Mohammad, Shaza M Hammad, Marwa S Shamaa

Keywords : Crack, Orthodontic bracket, Scanning electron microscopy, Shear strength

Citation Information : Shamsan H, Albelasy NF, Farahat DS, Mohammad MH, Hammad SM, Shamaa MS. The Effect of Thermocycling on the Shear Bond Strength of Flash-free Brackets and Healing Dynamics of Enamel Microcracks: An In vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024; 25 (9):836-845.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3746

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 20-12-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2024; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study evaluates long-term shear bond strength (SBS) and enamel micro cracks (MCs) healing after using adhesive pre-coated brackets (APC). Materials and methods: A total of eighty extracted human premolar teeth were randomly divided into four experimental groups (n = 20 per group): Control group: Teeth underwent indentation but no bracket bonding; group II: Teeth were subjected to indentation without exposure to thermocycling; group III: Teeth experienced both indentation and thermocycling; group IV: No indentation was applied to the teeth; groups III and IV were further divided into two subgroups to simulate different clinical timelines: Subgroup A (n = 10): Teeth underwent 5,000 thermocycles, equivalent to six months of clinical use. Subgroup B (n = 10): Teeth were subjected to 10,000 thermocycles, representing 12 months of use. All precoated brackets underwent debonding with a universal testing machine to assess the SBS, and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) was scored to evaluate the amount of adhesive left on the tooth surface. The study also examined horizontal and vertical enamel cracks, both pre- and post-intervention, across all groups. Crack healing was quantitatively assessed using computer-assisted digital image analysis to ensure precision. For statistical evaluation, ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis H-test, and Tukey's post-hoc tests were applied to assess differences among the groups. Results: The Kruskal–Wallis H-test demonstrated no significant ARI difference between the groups (p = 0.790). A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference among all groups (p < 0.001), with lower values observed in the group with indentation without thermocycling compared to all other groups and the groups with 5,000 thermocycles compared to the groups with, 10,000 thermocycles. Crack healing was observed in the control and second groups, and cracks were directly proportional to the number of thermocycles and SBS values. Conclusion: The study showed that APC FF's SBS increased, and thermal aging did not change the failure pattern. Thermocyclers and SBS affected enamel cracks. Clinical significance: The bond strength of pre-coated brackets and microcrack healing gradually increased with time, while the pattern of bond failure did not change.

PDF Share
  1. Alakttash AM, Fawzi M, Bearn D. Adhesive precoated bracket systems and operator coated bracket systems: Is there any difference? A systematic review and meta-analysis. Angle Orthod 2019;89(3):495–504. DOI: 10.2319/051818-373.1.
  2. Reynolds IR., von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: The relation of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size. Br J Orthod 1976;3(2):91–95. DOI: 10.1179/bjo. 3.2.91.
  3. Bowen RL. Use of epoxy resins in restorative materials. J Dent Res 1956;35(3):360–369. DOI: 10.1177/00220345560350030501.
  4. Öztürk F, Ersöz M, Öztürk SA, et al. Micro-CT evaluation of microleakage under orthodontic ceramic brackets bonded with different bonding techniques and adhesives. Eur J Orthod 2016;38(2):163–169. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjv023.
  5. González-Serrano C, Baena E, Fuentes MV, et al. Shear bond strength of a flash-free orthodontic adhesive system after thermal aging procedure. J Clin Exp Dent 2019;11(2):154–161. DOI: 10.4317/jced.55540.
  6. Bader Suralya, Agrawal P, Kumar Bagga D, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength between pre-coated and non-coated orthodontic attachments: An ex vivo study. NeuroQuantology 2022;20(6):4372–4379. DOI: 10.14704/nq.2022.20.6.NQ22435.
  7. Grünheid T, Sudit GN, Larson BE. Debonding and adhesive remnant cleanup: An in vitro comparison of bond quality, adhesive remnant cleanup, and orthodontic acceptance of a flash-free product. Eur J Orthod 2015;37(5):497–502. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cju080.
  8. Atik E, Gorucu-Coskuner H, Taner T. Clinical performance of precoated brackets and self-etch bonding technique: A prospective comparative study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23(6):2813–2821. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-018-2746-x.
  9. Nimplod P, Tansalarak R, Sornsuwan T. Effect of the different debonding strength of metal and ceramic brackets on the degree of enamel microcrack healing. Dental Press J Orthod 2021;26(3):e21 19177.
  10. Zachrisson BU, Skogan Ö, Höymyhr S. Enamel cracks in debonded, debanded, and orthodontically untreated teeth. Am J Orthod 1980;77(3):307–319. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(80)90084-6.
  11. Dumbryte I, Jonavicius T, Linkeviciene L, et al. Enamel cracks evaluation - A method to predict tooth surface damage during the debonding. Dent Mater J 2015;34(6):828–834. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2015-085.
  12. Faria-Júnior ÉM, Guiraldo RD, Berger SB, et al. In-vivo evaluation of the surface roughness and morphology of enamel after bracket removal and polishing by different techniques. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2015;147(3):324–329. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.10.033.
  13. Ahrari F, Heravi F, Fekrazad R, et al. Does ultra-pulse CO(2) laser reduce the risk of enamel damage during debonding of ceramic brackets? Lasers Med Sci 2012;27(3):567–574. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-011- 0933-y.
  14. Brown CRL, Way DC. Enamel loss during orthodontic bonding and subsequent loss during removal of filled and unfilled adhesives. Am J Orthod 1978;74(6):663–671. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(78)90 005-2.
  15. Rivera C, Arola D, Ossa A. Indentation damage and crack repair in human enamel. J Mech Behav Biomed Mater 2013;21:178–184. DOI: 10.1016/j.jmbbm.2013.02.020.
  16. Dumbryte I, Linkeviciene L, Malinauskas M, et al. Evaluation of enamel micro-cracks characteristics after removal of metal brackets in adult patients. Eur J Orthod 2013;35(3):317–322. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/cjr137.
  17. Helvatjoglu-Antoniades M, Koliniotou-Kubia E, Dionyssopoulos P. The effect of thermal cycling on the bovine dentine shear bond strength of current adhesive systems. J Oral Rehabil 2004;31(9):911–917. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2842.2004.01318.x.
  18. Mair L, Padipatvuthikul P. Variables related to materials and preparing for bond strength testing irrespective of the test protocol. Dent Mater 2010;26(2):e17–e23. DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.11.154.
  19. Bishara SE, Ajlouni R, Laffoon JF. Effect of thermocycling on the shear bond strength of a cyanoacrylate orthodontic adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2003;123(1):21–24. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2003.1.
  20. Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang AG, et al. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods 2007;39(2):175–191. DOI: 10.3758/bf03193146.
  21. Erdfelder E, Faul F, Buchner A, et al. Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behav Res Methods 2009;41(4):1149–1160. DOI: 10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149.
  22. Thawaba AA, Albelasy NF, Elsherbini AM, et al. Comparison of enamel surface roughness after bracket debonding and adhesive resin removal using different burs with and without the aid of a magnifying loupe. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022;23(11):1091–1099. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3432.
  23. Shibasaki S, Takamizawa T, Suzuki T, et al. Influence of different curing modes on polymerization behavior and mechanical properties of dual-cured provisional resins. Oper Dent 2017;42(5):526–536. DOI: 10.2341/16-335-L.
  24. Lamper T, Ilie N, Huth KC, et al. Self-etch adhesives for the bonding of orthodontic brackets: Faster, stronger, safer? Clin Oral Investig 2014;18(1):313–319. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-013-0942-2.
  25. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2(3):171–178. DOI: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666.
  26. Årtun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod 1984;85(4):333–340. DOI: 10.1016/0002-9416(84)90190-8.
  27. ElSherifa MT, Shamaa MS, Montasser MA. Enamel around orthodontic brackets coated with flash-free and conventional adhesives. J Orofac Orthop 2020;81(6):419–426. DOI: 10.1007/s00056-020-00241-7.
  28. Taşın S, Ismatullaev A. Comparative evaluation of the effect of thermocycling on the mechanical properties of conventionally polymerized, CAD-CAM milled, and 3D-printed interim materials. J Prosthet Dent 2022;127(1):173.e1–173.e8. DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2021.09.020.
  29. Porojan L, Toma FR, Bîrdeanu MI, et al. Surface characteristics and color stability of dental PEEK related to water saturation and thermal cycling. Polymers 2022;14(11):2144. DOI: 10.3390/polym14112144.
  30. Dumbryte I, Linkeviciene L, Linkevicius T, et al. Enamel microcracks in terms of orthodontic treatment: A novel method for their detection and evaluation. Dent Mater J 2017;36(4):438–446. DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2016-264.
  31. Inchingolo F, Inchingolo AM, Riccaldo L, et al. Structural and color alterations of teeth following orthodontic debonding: A systematic review. J Funct Biomater 2024 2024;15(5):123. DOI: 10.3390/jfb15050123.
  32. Xu HHK, Smith DT, Jahanmir S, et al. Indentation damage and mechanical properties of human enamel and dentin. J Dent Res 1998;77(3):472–480. DOI: 10.1177/00220345980770030601.
  33. Vorachart W, Sombuntham N, Parakonthun K. Adhesive precoated bracket: Is it worth using? Long-term shear bond strength: An in vitro study. Eur J Dent 2022;16(4):841–847. DOI: 10.1055/s-0041-1740224.
  34. Bishara SE, Ostby AW, Laffoon JF, et al. Shear bond strength comparison of two adhesive systems following thermocycling. A new self-etch primer and a resin-modified glass ionomer. Angle Orthod 2007;77(2):337–341. DOI: 10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0337:SBSCOT]2.0.CO.
  35. Montasser MA, Drummond JL. Reliability of the adhesive remnant index score system with different magnifications. Angle Orthod 2009;79(4):773–776. DOI: 10.2319/080108-398.1.
  36. Lee M, Kanavakis G. Comparison of shear bond strength and bonding time of a novel flash-free bonding system. Angle Orthod 2016;86(2):265–270. DOI: 10.2319/011715-37.1.
  37. Ansari MY, Agarwal DK, Gupta A, et al. Shear bond strength of ceramic brackets with different base designs: Comparative in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(11):ZC64–ZC68. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20624.8910.
  38. Enan E, Tawfik M, Ali A, et al. Surface properties of resin-infiltrated incipient enamel lesions after aging under thermal stresses. Egypt Dent J 2018;64(3):2833–2840. DOI: 10.21608/edj.2018.77339.
  39. ISO/TS 11405:2015. Dentistry—Testing of adhesion to tooth structure, 3rd edition. 2015. [online] Available from: https://www.iso.org/standard/62898.html. [Last accessed November, 2024].
  40. Bishara SE, Fonseca JM, Boyer DB. The use of debonding pliers in the removal of ceramic brackets: Force levels and enamel cracks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108(3):242–248. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(95)70016-1.
  41. Habibi M, Nik TH, Hooshmand T. Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: An in-vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 2007;132(5):675–679. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.11.040.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.