Bond strength of various bracket base designs

Wei Nan Wang, Chung Hsing Li, Ta Hsiung Chou, Dennis Ding Hwa Wang, Li Hsiang Lin, Che Tong Lin

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

To determine the influence of various bracket base designs on bond strength and debond interface, 6 types of metal interlock brackets of different sizes and with different base designs were evaluated. The bracket base types and mesh sizes tested were as follows: retention groove base (Dynalock, Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), circular concave base (Accuarch appliance Formula-R, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan), double mesh with 5.1 × 10-2 mm2 mesh size (Ultratrimm, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Minidiagonali Roth, Leone, Florence, Italy), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Tip-edge Rx-I, TP Orthodontics, LaPorte Ind), and double mesh, 2.9 × 10-2 mm 2 (Mini Diamond, Ormco, Glendora, Calif). The Unitek bracket is cast in 1 piece; the other brackets are welded together. Brackets were bonded to human teeth and then debonded on a testing machine. The debond interface was recorded and analyzed with scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry, and the distribution of interfaces was determined. The ranking of bond strength of individual bases (kg/base) from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Unitek, Leone, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. The ranking of bonding strength per area squared MPa from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Leone, Unitek, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. Debond in interfaces occurred between the bracket and resin, within the resin, or between the resin and enamel. The most debonded interfaces were between the bracket and resin and between the resin and enamel. The Tomy bracket, with its circular concave base, produced greater bond strength than did the mesh-based brackets; among the mesh-based brackets, Dentaurum, with the larger mesh size, produced greater bond strength than the brackets with smaller mesh sizes. The Unitek bracket, with its 1-piece cast base with retention grooves, ranked in the midrange of bond strength.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)65-70
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume125
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jan 2004

Fingerprint

Orthodontics
Dental Enamel
Diamond
Tokyo
Electron Scanning Microscopy
Italy
Germany
Spectrum Analysis
Tooth
Japan
Metals
X-Rays

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)
  • Surgery

Cite this

Wang, W. N., Li, C. H., Chou, T. H., Wang, D. D. H., Lin, L. H., & Lin, C. T. (2004). Bond strength of various bracket base designs. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, 125(1), 65-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.003

Bond strength of various bracket base designs. / Wang, Wei Nan; Li, Chung Hsing; Chou, Ta Hsiung; Wang, Dennis Ding Hwa; Lin, Li Hsiang; Lin, Che Tong.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 125, No. 1, 01.2004, p. 65-70.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wang, Wei Nan ; Li, Chung Hsing ; Chou, Ta Hsiung ; Wang, Dennis Ding Hwa ; Lin, Li Hsiang ; Lin, Che Tong. / Bond strength of various bracket base designs. In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2004 ; Vol. 125, No. 1. pp. 65-70.
@article{1e85ddeadc114d01a662fc52386189ed,
title = "Bond strength of various bracket base designs",
abstract = "To determine the influence of various bracket base designs on bond strength and debond interface, 6 types of metal interlock brackets of different sizes and with different base designs were evaluated. The bracket base types and mesh sizes tested were as follows: retention groove base (Dynalock, Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), circular concave base (Accuarch appliance Formula-R, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan), double mesh with 5.1 × 10-2 mm2 mesh size (Ultratrimm, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Minidiagonali Roth, Leone, Florence, Italy), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Tip-edge Rx-I, TP Orthodontics, LaPorte Ind), and double mesh, 2.9 × 10-2 mm 2 (Mini Diamond, Ormco, Glendora, Calif). The Unitek bracket is cast in 1 piece; the other brackets are welded together. Brackets were bonded to human teeth and then debonded on a testing machine. The debond interface was recorded and analyzed with scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry, and the distribution of interfaces was determined. The ranking of bond strength of individual bases (kg/base) from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Unitek, Leone, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. The ranking of bonding strength per area squared MPa from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Leone, Unitek, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. Debond in interfaces occurred between the bracket and resin, within the resin, or between the resin and enamel. The most debonded interfaces were between the bracket and resin and between the resin and enamel. The Tomy bracket, with its circular concave base, produced greater bond strength than did the mesh-based brackets; among the mesh-based brackets, Dentaurum, with the larger mesh size, produced greater bond strength than the brackets with smaller mesh sizes. The Unitek bracket, with its 1-piece cast base with retention grooves, ranked in the midrange of bond strength.",
author = "Wang, {Wei Nan} and Li, {Chung Hsing} and Chou, {Ta Hsiung} and Wang, {Dennis Ding Hwa} and Lin, {Li Hsiang} and Lin, {Che Tong}",
year = "2004",
month = "1",
doi = "10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.003",
language = "English",
volume = "125",
pages = "65--70",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Bond strength of various bracket base designs

AU - Wang, Wei Nan

AU - Li, Chung Hsing

AU - Chou, Ta Hsiung

AU - Wang, Dennis Ding Hwa

AU - Lin, Li Hsiang

AU - Lin, Che Tong

PY - 2004/1

Y1 - 2004/1

N2 - To determine the influence of various bracket base designs on bond strength and debond interface, 6 types of metal interlock brackets of different sizes and with different base designs were evaluated. The bracket base types and mesh sizes tested were as follows: retention groove base (Dynalock, Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), circular concave base (Accuarch appliance Formula-R, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan), double mesh with 5.1 × 10-2 mm2 mesh size (Ultratrimm, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Minidiagonali Roth, Leone, Florence, Italy), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Tip-edge Rx-I, TP Orthodontics, LaPorte Ind), and double mesh, 2.9 × 10-2 mm 2 (Mini Diamond, Ormco, Glendora, Calif). The Unitek bracket is cast in 1 piece; the other brackets are welded together. Brackets were bonded to human teeth and then debonded on a testing machine. The debond interface was recorded and analyzed with scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry, and the distribution of interfaces was determined. The ranking of bond strength of individual bases (kg/base) from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Unitek, Leone, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. The ranking of bonding strength per area squared MPa from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Leone, Unitek, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. Debond in interfaces occurred between the bracket and resin, within the resin, or between the resin and enamel. The most debonded interfaces were between the bracket and resin and between the resin and enamel. The Tomy bracket, with its circular concave base, produced greater bond strength than did the mesh-based brackets; among the mesh-based brackets, Dentaurum, with the larger mesh size, produced greater bond strength than the brackets with smaller mesh sizes. The Unitek bracket, with its 1-piece cast base with retention grooves, ranked in the midrange of bond strength.

AB - To determine the influence of various bracket base designs on bond strength and debond interface, 6 types of metal interlock brackets of different sizes and with different base designs were evaluated. The bracket base types and mesh sizes tested were as follows: retention groove base (Dynalock, Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), circular concave base (Accuarch appliance Formula-R, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan), double mesh with 5.1 × 10-2 mm2 mesh size (Ultratrimm, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Minidiagonali Roth, Leone, Florence, Italy), double mesh, 3.1 × 10-2 mm2 (Tip-edge Rx-I, TP Orthodontics, LaPorte Ind), and double mesh, 2.9 × 10-2 mm 2 (Mini Diamond, Ormco, Glendora, Calif). The Unitek bracket is cast in 1 piece; the other brackets are welded together. Brackets were bonded to human teeth and then debonded on a testing machine. The debond interface was recorded and analyzed with scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive x-ray spectrometry, and the distribution of interfaces was determined. The ranking of bond strength of individual bases (kg/base) from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Unitek, Leone, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. The ranking of bonding strength per area squared MPa from highest to lowest was Tomy, Dentaurum, Leone, Unitek, TP Orthodontics, and Ormco. Debond in interfaces occurred between the bracket and resin, within the resin, or between the resin and enamel. The most debonded interfaces were between the bracket and resin and between the resin and enamel. The Tomy bracket, with its circular concave base, produced greater bond strength than did the mesh-based brackets; among the mesh-based brackets, Dentaurum, with the larger mesh size, produced greater bond strength than the brackets with smaller mesh sizes. The Unitek bracket, with its 1-piece cast base with retention grooves, ranked in the midrange of bond strength.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0346094489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0346094489&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.003

DO - 10.1016/j.ajodo.2003.01.003

M3 - Article

VL - 125

SP - 65

EP - 70

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 1

ER -