Foil-mesh Base Research Articles

Safe Debonding of Fixed Appliances: A Comparison of Traditional Techniques and LODI Devices on Different Bracket Types in Terms of Enamel Cracks, Site of Bond Failure, and Bracket Reusability

The objective of this study was to compare the effects of the debonding of three different bracket types by means of three popular debonding methods. A total of 180 human third molars was divided into six groups, consisting of 20 teeth each. Three bracket types were bonded to the enamel (metal brackets with an integral base and a foil mesh base, and ceramic brackets) and three methods of bracket debonding were employed (bracket removal pliers, Weingart pliers, and Lift-Off Debonding Instrument). The samples were examined with scanning electron microscopy to assess the number of enamel cracks, measure the area of adhesive remaining on the enamel, and calculate the adhesive remnant index (ARI). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of the number of enamel cracks after bracket debonding. The amount of adhesive remaining on the teeth after the brackets were removed was significantly different between the groups. LODI and Weingart pliers are considered to be the safest methods of debonding brackets with an integral base, while LODI is the best tool for brackets with foil mesh. Bracket removal pliers are considered to be the preferred method for ceramic bracket debonding.

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

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. 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. 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. 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.

Shear Bond Strength and Morphological Analysis of KrF Laser-Recycled Metal Brackets

The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a KrF excimer laser versus traditional chairside deboned bracket processing methods of grinding, flaming, and sandblasting on the shear bond strength and morphological change of recycled brackets. Bracket dislodgement happens frequently in orthodontic treatment. The Victory Series bracket with a foil-mesh base and the Mini Sprint bracket with a raised base were chosen in this research. Grind, flame, sandblast, and laser groups acted as the experimental groups, and the new bracket group served as control. The shear bond strengths were determined with an Electroforce test machine and statistically tested by an analysis of variance (ANOVA). Morphological examinations of the recycled bracket bases were conducted with scanning electron microscopy and confocal laser scanning microscopy. Bracket base residue content was analyzed using Raman spectroscopy. The study showed that adhesive was left on the recycled bracket base processed by grinding and flaming, with significantly decreased shear bond strength (p<0.05). Sandblasting and KrF excimer lasering both thoroughly removed the adhesive. Shear bond strength decreased with sandblasting in the Victory bracket but not in the Mini Sprint bracket. Shear bond strength of KrF-lasered recycled brackets did not differ statistically from that of both kinds of new brackets. The study also showed that KrF excimer laser caused limited damage to the bracket. The KrF excimer laser can remove adhesive on the two different bracket bases effectively, causing little damage to the bracket; therefore, it is a superior bracket refurbishing method worth further study.

In vitro cyclic shear fatigue of the bracket-adhesive complex: a pilot study

The aim of this study was to describe the effect of fatigue on the shear strength of the bracket-adhesive complex. Brackets with laser-structured (Discovery®, Dentaurum) and foil mesh bases (Ultra-Minitrim®, Dentaurum) were bonded onto silanized stainless steel flat plates with two chemically curing adhesives (No-Mix Bonding System, Dentaurum; Concise™, 3M Unitek) and aged in distilled water at 37°C for 3 days. One group of specimens was used to determine shear-bond strength. The second group underwent shear-fatigue testing with a testing machine (Zwick 1445) according to the staircase method for 1,000 cycles, and the surviving specimens were subjected to shear-strength testing. The shear strength of the fatigued and non-fatigued specimens were then compared. Fatigued specimens demonstrated an 8% gain in shear strength in material group A (Discovery®/No-Mix) and a 10% loss of shear strength in material group D (Ultra-Minitrim®/Concise™) compared to the non-fatigued group. We observed no statistically significant differences in material groups B (Ultra-Minitrim®/No-Mix) and C (Discovery®/Concise™). The fatigue ratio varied between 60% and 67%. Among the non-fatigued specimens, the bracket Discovery® with laser-structured base showed circa 59% greater shear strength than the foil-mesh bracket Ultra-Minitrim®, and the adhesive Concise™ about 66% more shear strength than the No-Mix. Shear fatigue of the bracket-adhesive complex for 1,000 cycles revealed a variable, material-dependent influence on the shear strength of the bracket-adhesive complex. However, the effect of fatigue on shear strength was less significant than the effect of other factors such as bracket and adhesive type.

The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength

Many bracket base designs and adhesive materials are in clinical use today. Bases have evolved from perforated metal bases to the present foil mesh bases, and treatments range from none, to spraying metal alloy onto the base, to the most common treatment of microetching. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of orthodontic bracket base design on mean shear bond strength 1 hour or 24 hours after bonding. For each time group, 12 specimens of 6 types of metal brackets were bonded to bovine incisors with Transbond XT (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) light-cured composite resin. Brackets were debonded 1 hour or 24 hours later, and the shear bond strength was recorded. Six debonded brackets of each type from each time group were selected at random and sandblasted. All the teeth were cleaned, and half were rebonded with used brackets, and half were rebonded with new brackets. Bond strength was measured again, 1 hour or 24 hours later. Representative specimens were inspected under the scanning electron microscope. Bracket base design significantly affected mean shear bond strength. Speed (60-gauge, microetched foil-mesh base; Strite Industries, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada) had the highest bond strength at 1 hour; followed by Time (machined, integral, microetched base with mechanical undercuts; American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, Wis); American Master Series (80-gauge foil-mesh base; American Orthodontics); Ovation Roth (80-gauge layered onto 150-gauge, microetched foil-mesh base; GAC, Central Islip, NY); Orthos Optimesh XRT (100-gauge microetched foil-mesh base; Ormco, Orange, Calif); and, finally, the nickel-free brackets (injection molded, 100-gauge, microetched, foil-mesh base; World Class Technology, McMinnville, Ore). The 24-hour results were similar except that Time had the highest mean shear bond strength (ANOVA, P < .05). Chairside sandblasting significantly affected the 1-hour, but not the 24-hour, mean shear bond strengths (ANOVA, P < .05). Sandblasting appears to be an effective method of cleaning bracket bases before rebonding.

Comparison of bond strength between simple foil mesh and laser-structured base retention brackets

The aims of the current study were to evaluate the bond strength of a new metallic orthodontic bracket with a laser structured base (Discovery, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), and its effects on the site of bond failure and on the behavior of the enamel after debonding. One hundred and twenty recently extracted human premolars were bonded with 1 of 2 types of mechanical interlock base metal brackets: a standard system with a simple foil mesh pad (Minitrim, Dentaurum) and the Discovery bracket. A resin-based, chemically activated bonding system, No-mix (Dentaurum), was used as the adhesive system in this trial. The teeth were immersed in normal saline solution at 37°C for 7 days before debonding and were randomly assigned to different subgroups. A testing machine was used to evaluate tensile and fatigue bond strengths for both brackets. After debonding, the amount of residual adhesive on the bracket and enamel detachment were assessed according to the adhesive remnant index (ARI) and the enamel detachment index (EDI) with a scanning electron microscope and an energy dispersive X-ray spectrometer. The scores obtained from the ARI and the EDI showed that the laser structured base brackets had a significantly higher bond strength (mean ± SD: 17.1 ± 0.7 MPa) that was 2 times higher than that observed with the simple foil mesh brackets (mean ± SD: 8.7 ± 1.4 MPa) (P <.001). Bond failure with the laser structured base was at the enamel-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 3 in 80% of the teeth, and bond failure with the simple foil mesh base was at the bracket-adhesive interface with an ARI score of 0 in 75% of the teeth. A small area, with less than 10% of the enamel damaged (1 on the EDI) and 1.5 μm in thickness, was observed for both brackets. The laser structured base bracket's bond strength was double that of the simple foil mesh bracket but was equally safe and did not induce significant enamel detachment. (Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122:260-6)

Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs

Since the initial introduction of ceramic brackets, base designs have been modified to reduce tooth damage during debonding. The purpose of this study was to compare shear and tensile bond strengths and fracture sites of four second-generation ceramic brackets: Allure IV (A) (GAC International, Inc., Central Islip, N.Y.), Ceramaflex (C) (TP Orthodontics, Inc., LaPorte, Ind.), Intrigue (I) (Lancer Orthodontics, Carlsbad, Calif.), Transcend 2000 (T) (Unitek Corp., Monrovia, Calif.), and a foil-mesh base stainless steel bracket, DynaBond II (D) (Unitek Corp., Monrovia, Calif.). Twenty brackets of each type were bonded to 100 mandibular bovine incisor teeth with Concise bonding adhesive. The samples were thermocycled for 24 hours and the brackets were debonded with an Instron universal testing machine (Instron Corp., Canton, Mass.). A modified Transcend debonding instrument was used for tensile debonding, whereas a chisel was used for shear debonding. An analysis of variance was performed with a 0.05 level of confidence. Mean shear strengths (kg/cm2) necessary to debond were 174.0 (A), 71.0 (C), 189.0 (I), 228.0 (T), and 160.0 (D). Mean tensile strengths (kg/cm2) were 27.0 (A), 26.7 (C), 51.3 (I), 56.5 (T), and 48.6 (D). Fracture sites examined with a light microscope showed no enamel damage with any of the ceramic brackets. Intrigue was the only bracket to fracture and had 30% bracket fracture in the tensile mode and 20% bracket fracture in the shear mode. The percentage of fractures at the adhesive-bracket base interface for shear and tensile modes, respectively, were 80, 100 (A); 100, 90 (C); 10, 60 (I); 60, 90 (T); and 90, 80 (D).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive

A trial was carried out to evaluate the clinical performance of a visible light-cured adhesive when used with a foil mesh base in an indirect bonding technique. Thirty-seven patients entered the trial, and a total of 407 brackets were placed. The incidence and site of bond failure were recorded. The overall failure rate was 6.5%. There were no significant differences detected between the failure rates for either the upper or the lower arches or for the anterior and the posterior segments of the arches (p less than 0.01).

The Effects of Recycling on the Tensile Bond Strength of New and Clinically Used Stainless Steel Orthodontic Brackets: An In Vitro Study

The tensile bond strength was evaluated for three different types of stainless steel orthodontic bracket/base combinations (both cast and machined integral bases, and a foil-mesh base). The cast base gave a significantly higher initial bond strength than the other two brackets. Following recycling by either chemical or thermal methods, all the bases demonstrated a significant reduction in bond strength. However, thermal recycling produced an unacceptably large reduction in the bond strength of the cast base and this method of reconditioning should be avoided with these brackets. Recycling the brackets an additional four times was found to result in a further reduction in bond strength, but this was not statistically significant. Clinically used brackets demonstrated a slightly lower, though not statistically significant, bond strength compared to unused brackets following one recycling with either the chemical or thermal method.

Improvements in bracket base design

Acid etch bonding of orthodontic attachments to the labial and lingual surfaces of teeth is generally adequate for clinical service. Failures do occur, and these are related to technique problems in acid etching or resin manipulation or to bracket base design. The widely used foil mesh base can present problems in retention because of design defects or corrosion. Improvement in mechanical retention of resin to the attachment base would result in significant improvements in bonding and fewer clinical failures. One of our approaches to improved retention is to fuse metallic or ceramic particles onto the bracket base so as to achieve a particulate or porous layer into which resin can penetrate. The results of bond-strength tests showed that a 100 percent increase in bond strength could be obtained with sintered porous metal-coated brackets. Further development is proceeding.