The mean tensile/peel bond strengths were evaluated for three types of aesthetic brackets (a ceramic-reinforced bracket and two generations of a ceramic/polycarbonate combination bracket). These were found to be significantly lower than the mean tensile/peel bond strength of a convention foil-mesh stainless steel bracket base. Failure of the ceramic-reinforced polycarbonate brackets occurred predominantly by fracture of the tie wings during testing. With the ceramic/polycarbonate combination brackets, the majority of the specimens failed due to separation of the ceramic and polycarbonate parts of the bracket.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BordeauxJ. M., MooreR. N. and BagbyM. D. (1994) Comparative evaluation of ceramic bracket base designs, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 105, 552–560.
2.
ChaconasS. J., CaputoA. A. and NiuS. L. (1991) Bond strength of ceramic brackets with various bonding systems, The Angle Orthodontist, 61, 35–41.
3.
DouglassJ. B. (1989) Enamel wear caused by ceramic brackets, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 95, 96–98.
4.
EdenG. T., GraigR. G. and PeytonF. A. (1970) Evaluation of a tensile test for direct filling resins, Journal of Dental Research, 49, 428–434.
5.
FergusonJ. W., ReadM. J. F. and WattsD. C. (1984) Bond strength of an integral bracket-base combination: an in vitro study, European Journal of Orthodontics, 6, 267–276.
6.
FoxN. A. and McCabeJ. F. (1992) An easily removable ceramic bracket?British Journal of Orthodontics, 19, 305–309.
7.
FoxN. A. and McCabeJ. F. and BuckleyJ. G. (1994) A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics, British Journal of Orthodontics, 21, 33–43.
8.
FranklinS. and Garcia-GodoyF. (1993) Shear bond strengths and effects on enamel of two ceramic brackets, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 27, 83–88.
9.
JosephV. P. and RussouwE. (1990) The shear bond strength of stainless steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 97, 121–125.
10.
KatonaT. R. and ChenJ. (1994) Engineering and experimental analyses of the tensile load applied during testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 106, 167–174.
11.
KatonaT. R. and MooreK. (1994) The effects of load misalignment on tensile load testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets—a finite element model, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 105, 543–551.
12.
MerrillS. W., LarryJ. O. and HermeschC. B. (1994) Ceramic bracket bonding: a comparison of shear, tensile, and torsional bond strengths of ceramic brackets, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 106, 290–297.
13.
ReddT. B. and ShivapujaP. K. (1991) Debonding ceramic brackets: effects on enamel, Journal of Clinical Orthodontics, 25, 475–481.
14.
ReesJ. S. and JacobsenP. H. (1990) The current status of composite materials and adhesive systems. Part 3: evaluation of adhesion, Restorative Dentistry, 6, 19–22.
15.
ReganD. and van NoortR. (1989) Bond strengths of two integral bracket-base combinations: an in vitro comparison with foil-mesh, European Journal of Orthodontics, 11, 144–153.
16.
ReganD., LeMasneyB. and van NoortR. (1993) The tensile bond strength of new and rebonded stainless steel orthodontic brackets, European Journal of Orthodontics, 15, 125–135.
17.
ReynoldsI. R. (1975) A review of direct bonding, British Journal of Orthodontics, 2, 171–178.
18.
ScottG. E. (1988) Fracture toughness and surface cracks—key to understanding ceramic brackets, The Angle Orthodontist, 58, 5–8.
19.
Van NoortR.NorooziS.HowardI. C. and CardewG. (1989) A critique of bond strength measurements, Journal of Dentistry, 17, 61–67.
