Evaluation of the debonding characteristics of 2 ceramic brackets: An in vitro study

Academic Article

Abstract

  • The objectives of this study were to evaluate and compare the shear bond strengths and bond failure locations of 2 currently available orthodontic ceramic brackets. Forty polycrystalline ceramic brackets (Clarity, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) and 40 monocrystalline ceramic brackets (Inspire, Ormco, Orange, Calif) were bonded to 80 extracted premolars with the same bonding system. All bonded specimens were placed in distilled water for 42 hours at 37°C followed by thermal cycling for 700 complete cycles. Forty ceramic brackets, 20 of each type, were tested on a universal testing machine to determine the shear force levels required to debond them. Forty ceramic brackets were removed with the debonding pliers recommended by the manufacturers. All teeth were examined under an optical microscope, and the adhesive remnant index was used to assess the bond failure locations. The mean shear bond strength of the Clarity brackets was 21.67 ± 5.19 MPa, and the mean shear bond strength of the Inspire brackets was 20.32 ± 8 MPa. The mean shear bond strengths of both brackets were higher than those considered clinically optimal. Most of the brackets (85% of Clarity and 75% of Inspire) tested on the machine failed at the bracket-adhesive interface. One premolar bonded with an Inspire bracket had enamel fracture upon debonding. Most of the brackets (90% of Clarity and 95% of Inspire) debonded with pliers failed at the bracket-adhesive interface. No enamel damage was evident in any specimen when the brackets were removed with the appropriate pliers. The results indicate that the safest way to remove ceramic brackets with respect to reducing the chance of enamel damage is to use the debonding technique specifically designed for each.
  • Digital Object Identifier (doi)

    Author List

  • Theodorakopoulou LP; Sadowsky PL; Jacobson A; Lacefield W
  • Start Page

  • 329
  • End Page

  • 336
  • Volume

  • 125
  • Issue

  • 3