In orthodontic treatments, mechanical characterization of orthodontic bracket bonded to the tooth is essential to determine the bond strength and mechanical behavior of the bracket-adhesive-tooth system. In this study, the linear-nonlinear mechanical behavior and damage characterization of Filtek Z350 XT (3M ESPE) nanocomposite as a dental adhesive material to bond orthodontic brackets to tooth enamel, are investigated using numerical and experimental methods. Full sets of tensile, shear, and mixed modes I/II and I/II/III debonding experiments are conducted to extract the mechanical properties of the nanocomposite adhesive as the bracket/tooth interface. The results of the experiments are used to obtain the cohesive law and the damage model parameters. Three-dimensional finite element models of the bracket debonding tests are developed, while the cohesive zone model (CZM) is used to define the constitutive behavior of the nanocomposite interface under the tensile, shear, and mixed-mode loading conditions. The FE results showed a good correlation with the measured data, indicated the validity of the constitutive model, damage properties, and simulation process. The bond strengths of the nanocomposite adhesive are obtained 8.35 and 4.12MPa in modes I and II loadings, respectively.
AbuelenainDNeelEAl-DharrabA (2015)
Surface and mechanical properties of different dental composites. Austin Journal of Dentistry2(2): 1019–1023.
2.
Ahmad AkhoundiMSAghajaniFChalipaJ, et al. (2014)
The effect of remin pro and MI paste plus on bleached enamel surface roughness. Journal of Dentistry (Tehran, Iran)11(2): 216–224.
3.
Aktuna BelgınCSerindereGOrhanK (2019)
Accuracy and reliability of enamel and dentin thickness measurements on micro-computed tomography and digital periapical radiographs#. Journal of Forensic Radiology and Imaging18: 32–36.
4.
AlfanoG (2006)
On the influence of the shape of the interface law on the application of cohesive-zone models. Composites Science and Technology66(6): 723–730.
5.
AlgeraTJFeilzerAJPrahl-AndersenB, et al. (2011)
A comparison of finite element analysis with in vitro bond strength tests of the bracket–cement–enamel system. The European Journal of Orthodontics33(6): 608–612.
6.
AriciSCanikliogluCMAriciN, et al. (2005)
Adhesive thickness effects on the bond strength of a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement. The Angle Orthodontist75(2): 254–259.
7.
ArimaSNamuraYTamuraT, et al. (2018)
Easy debonding of ceramic brackets bonded with a light-cured orthodontic adhesive containing microcapsules with a CO2 laser. Photomedicine and Laser Surgery36(3): 162–168.
ASTM (2013) ASTM D5528–13, Standard test method for mode I interlaminar fracture toughness of unidirectional fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites. West Conshohocken, PA, USA, ASTM International.
10.
ASTM (2014) ASTM D7905/D7905M-14, Standard Test Method for Determination of the Mode II Interlaminar Fracture Toughness of Unidirectional Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Matrix Composites. West Conshohocken, PA, USA, ASTM International.
11.
AvilaAde Oliveira FrancoAPOliveiraD, et al. (2013)
Comparative analysis of adhesive failure of orthodontic resins: An in vitro mechanical test with the finite element method. European Journal of General Dentistry2(2): 124–129.
12.
Aydogan AyazEDurkanR (2013)
Influence of acrylamide monomer addition to the acrylic denture-base resins on mechanical and physical properties. International Journal of Oral Science5(4): 229–235.
13.
BenzeggaghMLKenaneM (1996)
Measurement of mixed-mode delamination fracture toughness of unidirectional glass/epoxy composites with mixed-mode bending apparatus. Composites Science and Technology56(4): 439–449.
14.
CampilhoRDSGBaneaMDNetoJABP, et al. (2013)
Modelling adhesive joints with cohesive zone models: Effect of the cohesive law shape of the adhesive layer. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives44: 48–56.
15.
CarvalhoUTFCampilhoRDSG (2018)
Validation of a direct method to predict the strength of adhesively bonded joints. Science and Technology of Materials30(3): 138–143.
16.
Chaudhari V, Kulkarni DM, Rathi S, Sancheti A, and Dixit S. (2017). Investigation of Cohesive Zone Model Parameters for Steel Used in Shipbuilding Structure. Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition. Mechanics of Solids, Structures and Fluids; NDE, Structural Health Monitoring and Prognosis. Tampa, Florida, USA. November 3–9, 2017; 9: V009T12A040. ASME. https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2017-70977
17.
Chen Y, Yang J, Wang F and Peng J. Short beam shear damage analysis of GLARE laminates based on digital image correlation and finite element analysis. International Journal of Damage Mechanics 2022; 31(4): 623–642.
18.
DávilaCGCamanhoPP (2003) Analysis of the Effects of Residual Strains and Defects on Skin/Stiffener Debonding using Decohesion Elements. Norfolk, Virginia, United States : NASA Langley Research Center.
19.
DemirovicKSlajMSpaljS, et al. (2018)
Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets using direct and indirect bonding methods in vitro and in vivo. Acta Informatica Medica26(2): 125–129.
20.
ElsakaSEHammadSMIbrahimNF (2014)
Evaluation of stresses developed in different bracket-cement-enamel systems using finite element analysis with in vitro bond strength tests. Progress in Orthodontics15(1): 33–33.
21.
FinnemaKJÖzcanMPostWJ, et al. (2010)
In-vitro orthodontic bond strength testing: a systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics137(5): 615–622. e613.
22.
FoxNAMcCabeJFBuckleyJG (1994)
A critique of bond strength testing in orthodontics. British Journal of Orthodontics21(1): 33–43.
23.
GibasMTanasiewiczMRączkowskaA, et al. (2009)
Quantitative analysis of fractured surfaces in PMnEDM-based dental adhesive bonds by use of optical microscopy. The Journal of Adhesion85(12): 932–940.
24.
GogineniRKhudarePGaneshkarSV, et al. (2019)
Comparison of tensile bond strength of new and recycled orthodontic bracket:-in vitro study. International Journal of Current Advanced Research8(3): 17865–17868.
25.
HabelitzSMarshallSJMarshallGWJr, et al. (2001)
Mechanical properties of human dental enamel on the nanometre scale. Archives of Oral Biology46(2): 173–183.
26.
HabibiMHosseinzadeh-NikTHooshmandT (2007)
Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: an in-vitro study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics132(5): 675–679.
27.
HallNELindauerSJTüfekçiE, et al. (2007)
Predictors of variation in mandibular incisor enamel thickness. The Journal of the American Dental Association138(6): 809–815.
28.
HögbergJLStighU (2006)
Specimen proposals for mixed mode testing of adhesive layer. Engineering Fracture Mechanics73(16): 2541–2556.
29.
HortnaglJG (2013) Determination of cohesive parameters for aerospace adhesives. Master of Science, Oregon State University.
30.
Hosseinzadeh-NikTKarimzadehAAyatollahiMR (2013)
Bond strength of a nano-composite used for bonding ceramic orthodontic brackets. Materials & Design51(0): 902–906.
31.
IchimILiQLoughranJ, et al. (2007)
Restoration of non-carious cervical lesions: Part I. Modelling of restorative fracture. Dental Materials23(12): 1553–1561.
32.
JassemHARetiefDHJamisonHC (1981)
Tensile and shear strengths of bonded and rebonded orthodontic attachments. American Journal of Orthodontics79(6): 661–668.
33.
JiGOuyangZLiG, et al. (2010)
Effects of adhesive thickness on global and local Mode-I interfacial fracture of bonded joints. International Journal of Solids and Structures47(18–19): 2445–2458.
34.
JuS-PChenH-YShihC-W (2018)
Investigating mechanical properties of polymethylmethacrylate/silver nanoparticle composites by molecular dynamics simulation. Journal of Nanoparticle Research20(1): 1.
35.
KarimzadehA (2017) Investigation on orthodontic bond strength using experimental and numerical methods. PhD Thesis, Iran University of Science and Technology.
36.
KarimzadehAAyatollahiMRHosseinzadeh NikT (2019)
Tribological properties of dental enamel before and after orthodontic bracket Bonding-Debonding by Nano-Scratch test. Journal of Mechanics35(02): 279–279.
37.
KarimzadehAAyatollahiMRHosseinzadeh-NikT (2015)
Effects of a nano-composite adhesive on mechanical properties of tooth enamel after removing orthodontics bracket – An experimental study using nano-indentation test. Experimental Mechanics55(9): 1769–1777.
38.
KarimzadehAAyatollahiMRNikkhooyifarM, et al. (2017)
Nanomechanical properties and wear resistance of dental restorative materials. Structural Engineering and Mechanics64(6): 819–826.
39.
KarimzadehAAyatollahiRMRahimian KoloorSS, et al. (2019)
Assessment of compressive mechanical behavior of bis-GMA polymer using hyperelastic models. Polymers11(10): 1571.
40.
KarimzadehAKoloorSSRAyatollahiMR, et al. (2019)
Assessment of nano-indentation method in mechanical characterization of heterogeneous nanocomposite materials using experimental and computational approaches. Scientific Reports9(1): 15763.
41.
KarimzadehA, R.KoloorSSAyatollahiMR, et al. (2019)
Assessment of nano-indentation method in mechanical characterization of heterogeneous nanocomposites using experimental and computational approaches. Scientific Reports9(1): 1–14.
42.
KatonaTR (1997)
A comparison of the stresses developed in tension, shear peel, and torsion strength testing of direct bonded orthodontic brackets. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics112(3): 244–251.
43.
KatonaTR (1997)
Stresses developed during clinical debonding of stainless steel orthodontic brackets. The Angle Orthodontist67(1): 39–46.
44.
Khayer DastjerdiATanEBarthelatF (2013)
Direct measurement of the cohesive law of adhesives using a rigid double cantilever beam technique. Experimental Mechanics53(9): 1763–1772.
45.
KinneyJHGladdenJRMarshallGW, et al. (2004)
Resonant ultrasound spectroscopy measurements of the elastic constants of human dentin. Journal of Biomechanics37(4): 437–441.
46.
KlockeAKahl-NiekeB (2005a)
Influence of cross-head speed in orthodontic bond strength testing. Dental Materials21(2): 139–144.
47.
KlockeAKahl-NiekeB (2005b)
Influence of force location in orthodontic shear bond strength testing. Dental Materials21(5): 391–396.
48.
KnoxJKraljBHübschPF, et al. (2001)
An evaluation of the influence of orthodontic adhesive on the stresses generated in a bonded bracket finite element model. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics119(1): 43–53.
49.
KoloorSSRAbdullahMATaminMN, et al. (2019)
Fatigue damage of cohesive interfaces in fiber-reinforced polymer composite laminates. Composites Science and Technology183: 107779.
50.
KoloorSSRAriffIMYidrisN, et al. (2018) Fracture energy of CFRP composite lamina in fiber breakage mode using digital image correlation and finite element methods. In: The 6th international conference on composites: Characterization, fabrication and application (CCFA-6). February 2019. Iran University of Science & Technology, Tehran, Iran.
51.
LiXGaoWLiuW (2019)
A mesh objective continuum damage model for quasi-brittle crack modelling and finite element implementation. International Journal of Damage Mechanics28(9): 1299–1322.
52.
LiHLiJZouZ, et al. (2011)
Fracture simulation of restored teeth using a continuum damage mechanics failure model. Dental Materials27(7): e125–e133.
53.
LinCLHuangSFTsaiHC, et al. (2011)
Finite element sub-modeling analyses of damage to enamel at the incisor enamel/adhesive interface upon de-bonding for different orthodontic bracket bases. Journal of Biomechanics44(1): 134–142.
54.
MattaSKolanuNRChinthapentaV, et al. (2019)
Progressive damage analysis of adhesively bonded patch repaired carbon fibre–reinforced polymer specimen under compression involving cohesive zone model. International Journal of Damage Mechanics28(10): 1457–1489.
55.
NgTPKoloorSSRDjuansjahJRP, et al. (2017)
Assessment of compressive failure process of cortical bone materials using damage-based model. Journal of the Mechanical Behavior of Biomedical Materials66: 1–11.
56.
PickettKLLionel SadowskyPJacobsonA, et al. (2001)
Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: Comparison with in vitro results. The Angle Orthodontist71(2): 141–148.
57.
PintoAMGMagalhãesAGCampilhoRDSG, et al. (2009)
Single-lap joints of similar and dissimilar adherends bonded with an acrylic adhesive. The Journal of Adhesion85(6): 351–376.
58.
Rahimian-KoloorSS (2016) Simulation methodology for fracture processes of composite laminates using damage-based models. PhD Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia (UTM).
59.
Rahimian-KoloorSSKhosravaniMRHamzahRIR, et al. (2018)
FE model-based construction and progressive damage processes of FRP composite laminates with different manufacturing processes. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences141: 223–235.
60.
Rahimian-KoloorSSTaminMN (2018)
Mode-II interlaminar fracture and crack-jump phenomenon in CFRP composite laminate materials. Composite Structures204: 594–606.
61.
Rahimian-KoloorSMHashemianzadehSMShokriehMM (2018)
Effect of CNT structural defects on the mechanical properties of CNT/epoxy nanocomposite. Physica B: Condensed Matter540: 16–25.
62.
RambhiaSHeshmatiRDhuruV, et al. (2009)
Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to provisional crown materials utilizing two different adhesives. The Angle Orthodontist79(4): 784–789.
ReichenederCAGedrangeTLangeA, et al. (2009)
Shear and tensile bond strength comparison of various contemporary orthodontic adhesive systems: An in-vitro study. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics135(4): 422.e421–422.e426.
65.
ReynoldsIR (1975)
A review of direct orthodontic bonding. British Journal of Orthodontics2(3): 171–178.
66.
RochaRJBCampilhoRDSG (2018)
Evaluation of different modelling conditions in the cohesive zone analysis of single-lap bonded joints. The Journal of Adhesion94(7): 562–582.
67.
RosenbachGCal-NetoJPOliveiraSR, et al. (2007)
Effect of enamel etching on tensile bond strength of brackets bonded in vivo with a resin-reinforced glass ionomer cement. The Angle Orthodontist77(1): 113–116.
68.
SharmaAAlamSSharmaC, et al. (2019)
Static and dynamic mechanical behavior of microcapsule-reinforced dental composite. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part L: Journal of Materials: Design and Applications233(6): 1184–1190.
69.
ShodjaHMHashemianB (2020)
Variational bounds and overall shear modulus of nano-composites with interfacial damage in anti-plane couple stress elasticity. International Journal of Damage Mechanics29(2): 246–271.
70.
StanfordSKWozniakWTFinPL (1997)
The need for standardization of test protocols. Seminars in Orthodontics3(3): 206–209.
71.
StroudJLEnglishJBuschangPH (1998)
Enamel thickness of the posterior dentition: Its implications for nonextraction treatment. The Angle Orthodontist68(2): 141–146.
72.
StumpfAdSGBergmannCPrietschJR, et al. (2013)
Shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets using color change adhesives. Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics18(2): 76–80.
73.
TamBBolluPChaudhryK, et al. (2017)
The effect of pre-cure bracket movement on shear bond strength during placement of orthodontic brackets, an in vitro study. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry9(10): e1212–1217-e1217.
74.
TrydingJMarinGNygårdsM, et al. (2017)
Experimental and theoretical analysis of in-plane cohesive testing of paperboard. International Journal of Damage Mechanics26(6): 895–918.
YangYChenJHuangZ (2020)
Damage evolution in fibrous composites caused by interfacial debonding. International Journal of Damage Mechanics29(1): 67–85.
77.
ZhangJWangJYuanZ, et al. (2018)
Effect of the cohesive law shape on the modelling of adhesive joints bonded with brittle and ductile adhesives. International Journal of Adhesion and Adhesives85: 37–43.
78.
ZhaoJLuLRabczukT (2015)
The tensile and shear failure behavior dependence on chain length and temperature in amorphous polymers. Computational Materials Science96: 567–572.
79.
ZhouBThoulessMDWardSM (2005)
Determining Mode-I cohesive parameters for nugget fracture in ultrasonic spot welds. International Journal of Fracture136(1–4): 309–326.
