Browse > Article

Comparison of bracket bond strength in various directions of force  

Lee, Hyun-Jung (Department of Orthodontcis, School of Dentistry, Institute of Oral Bioscience, Chonbuk National University)
Lee, Hyung-Soon (Department of Orthodontcis, School of Dentistry, Institute of Oral Bioscience, Chonbuk National University)
Jeon, Young-Mi (Department of Orthodontcis, School of Dentistry, Institute of Oral Bioscience, Chonbuk National University)
Kim, Jong-Ghee (Department of Orthodontcis, School of Dentistry, Institute of Oral Bioscience, Chonbuk National University)
Publication Information
The korean journal of orthodontics / v.33, no.5, 2003 , pp. 359-370 More about this Journal
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to metal bar with chemically cured adhesive (Ortho-one, Bisco Co, USA) in various types and directions of force application. Three types of metal bracket with different bracket base configurations; Micro-Loc base(Tomy Co, Japan), Chessboard base(Daesung Co, Korea), Non-etched Foil-Mesh base(Dentaurum, Germany); were used in this study. Peel, shear, tensile bond strengths were measured by universal testing machine and compared each other. The peel force directions applied were $0^{\circ},\;15^{\circ},\;30^{\circ},\;45^{\circ},\;60^{\circ},\;75^{\circ},\;90^{\circ}$ And then, in consideration of the different surface area of the bracket bases, the bond strength Per unit area were calculated and compared. The results obtained were summarized as follows: 1. The bond strengths according to the types and the directions of the forces were greatest at the shear forces in all three bracket base configuration groups(p<0.01). 2. As the peel force direction grew higher in degree, peel bond strength decreased. The Patterns of peel bond strength change according to force direction was similar in all three bracket base configurations. The minimum bond strength was 60 degree-peel bond strengths in all three bracket base configurations. 3. In Micro-Loc base group, minimum peel bond strength$(_{60}PBS)$ was in $29\%$ level of shear bond strength and $52\%$ level of tensile bond strength. In Chessboard base group, $_{60}PBS$ was in $34\%$ level of shear bond strength and $61\%$ level of tensile bond strength. In Non-etched Foil-Mesh base group, $_{60}PBS$ was in $34\%$ level of shear bond strength and $55\%$ level of tensile bond strength. 4. The bond strengths per unit area were lowest in Non-etched Foil-Mesh base group and highest in Chessboard base group(p<0.05). However, there were no differences in shear bond strength, tensile bond strength, $75^{\circ}\;and\;90^{\circ}$ per unit area between Micro-Loc and Chessboard base groups.
Keywords
Tensile bond strength; Shear bond strength; Peel bond strength;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 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 : 91-5   PUBMED
2 Merrill SW, Oesterle LJ, Hermesch CB. Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1994 : 106 : 290-7
3 이춘봉, 이승호, 김정기. 브라켓 기저부 형태에 따른 전단, 인장, 전단/인장복합결합강도의 비교. 대치교정지 1999 : 29 : 599-612
4 Britton JC, McInnes P, Weinberg R, Ledoux WR, Retief DH. Shear bond strength of ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990 : 98 : 348-53
5 Harris AM, Joseph VP, Rossouw PE. Shear peel bond strengths of esthetic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1992 : 102: 215-9
6 Odegaard J, Segner D. Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988 : 94: 201-6
7 Siomka LV, Powers JM. In vitro bond strength of treated direct bonding metal bases. Am J Orthod 1985 : 88 : 133-6
8 Proffit WR, Fields HW, Nixon WL. Occlusal forces in normal- and long-face adults. J Dent Res 1983 : 62 : 566-70
9 Delport A, Grobler SR. A laboratory evaluation of the tensile bond strength of some orthodontic bonding resins to enamel. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988 : 93 : 133-7
10 Silverstone LM, Saxton CA, Dogon IL, Fejerskov O. Variation in the pattern of acid etching of human dental enamel examined by scanning electron microscopy. Caries Res 1975 : 9 : 373-87
11 Littlewood SJ, Redhead A. Use of jigs to standardise orthodontic bond testing. J Dent 1998 : 26 : 539-45
12 Gaffey PG, Major PW, Glover K, Grace M, Koehler JR. Shear/peel bond strength of repositioned ceramic brackets. Angle Orthod 1995 : 65 : 351-7
13 Dickinson PT, Powers JM. Evaluation of fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases. Am J Orthod 1980 : 78 : 630-9
14 Regan D, LeMasney B, van Noort R. The tensile bond strength of new and rebonded stainless steel orthodontic brackets. Eur J Orthod 1993 : 15: 125-35
15 Kinami H, Sugimura M, Takada K, Sakuda M, Okazaki M, Kimura H. Suppression of remaining resin on the tooth surfaces in debonding of orthodontic brackets. Part 1. Destruction behaviors of adhesion system. J Osaka Univ Dent Sch 1988 : 28 : 171-87
16 Bishara SE, Olsen M, Von Wald L. Comparisons of shear bond strength of precoated and uncoated brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1997 : 112 : 617-21
17 Smith DC, Maijer R. Improvements in bracket base design. Am J Orthod 1983 : 83 : 277-81
18 Buonocore MG, Sheykholeslam Z, Glena R. Evaluation of an enamel adhesive to prevent marginal leakage: an in vitro study. ASDC J Dent Child 1973 : 40 : 119-24
19 Ostertag AJ, Dhuru VB, Ferguson DJ, Meyer RA Jr. Shear, torsional, and tensile bond strengths of ceramic brackets using three adhesive filler concentrations. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1991 : 100 : 251-8
20 Fox NA, McCabe JF, Buckley JG. A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. Br J Orthod 1994 : 21 : 33-43
21 Kinami H, Sugimura M, Takada K, SakudaM, Okazaki M, Kimura H. Suppression of remaining resin on the tooth surfaces in debonding oforthodontic brackets. Part 2. Correlation between bracket base form design and remaining resin on the tooth surfaces. J Osaka Univ Dent Sch 1988 : 28 : 189-98
22 MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket base surface area with conventional and microetched foil-mesh bases. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1998 : 113 : 276-81
23 Willems G, Carels CE, Verbeke G. In vitro peel/shear bond strength evaluation of orthodontic bracket base design. J Dent 1997 : 25 : 271-8   DOI   ScienceOn
24 Gunn S, Powers JM. Strength of ceramic brackets in shear and torsion tests. J Clin Orthod 1991 : 25 : 355-8
25 Gwinnett AJ, Matsui A. A study of enamel adhesives. The physical relationship between enamel and adhesive. Arch Oral BioI 1967 : 12 : 1615-20
26 Smith NR, Reynolds IR. A comparison of three bracket bases: an in vitro study. Br J Orthod 1991 : 18 : 29-35