Abstract
The objectives of this study were to (1) to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) of two ceramic brackets when new and when rebonded following various bracket base conditioning methods, and (2) to determine bond failure mode relative to bracket base morphology. 100 Symetri ClearTM (SC) and 100 Radiance Plus® (RP) ceramic brackets were bonded to bovine incisors and divided into five groups: one group served as controls and four had brackets rebonded following conditioning by: no surface treatment, sealant, sandblasting, and flame then steam. SBS, adhesive remnant index, and bracket base morphology were evaluated. SBS showed no statistical difference between new and rebonded with no surface treatment or sealant (SC brackets) and with sealant or flame and steam (RP brackets). When comparing SC to RP, SBS was higher with SC, no surface treatment, and sandblasted groups. All groups had varying amounts of adhesive left on the tooth, with the sandblasted group having the most. SEM analysis showed that sandblasting damaged the retention features of bracket bases. In conclusion, when rebonded, the SBS of SC brackets that had no surface treatment and both SC and RP brackets that had sealant showed no significant differences to new brackets. Sandblasting damaged the retention features of SC and RP bracket bases, resulting in low SBS.
Highlights
Ceramic brackets are commonly used in today’s orthodontic practice due to their esthetic properties, biocompatibility with oral tissues, comparable bond strengths to metal brackets, and resistance to thermal and chemical changes [1–3]
Disadvantages have been noted for ceramic brackets including brittleness and enameladhesive bond failure during debonding [4–6]
For the Radiance Plus® (RP) brackets, the order from highest to lowest was N, R-S, R-FS, R-NST, and R-SB, with a median shear bond strength (SBS) ranging from 1.08 ± 0.85 to 8.35 ± 3.87 MPa
Summary
Ceramic brackets are commonly used in today’s orthodontic practice due to their esthetic properties, biocompatibility with oral tissues, comparable bond strengths to metal brackets, and resistance to thermal and chemical changes [1–3]. Despite their popularity, disadvantages have been noted for ceramic brackets including brittleness and enameladhesive bond failure during debonding [4–6]. Rebonding of debonded brackets would save the cost of a replacement bracket, but decreased bond strength could be a potential tradeoff. With chemically retentive ceramic brackets, Lew et al [8] found that rebonded brackets have. With mechanically retentive ceramic brackets, Harris et al [9] found similar bond strengths between recycled and new brackets
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
