Cumhur TUNCER, Burcu BALOŞ TUNCER, Çağrı ULUSOY, Çağrı TÜRKÖZ, Selin KALE VARLIK

Seramik ve metal ortodontik braketlerin mine yüzeyine bağlanma kuvvetlerinin incelenmesi: in vitro bir çalışma

AMAÇ: Braketleri diş yüzeyine yapıştırmakta kullanılan adeziv sistemler, ortodontik tedavi sırasında ve çiğneme esnasında oluşan kuvvetlere karşı yeterli dayanıklılığı göstermelidir. Bu in vitro çalışmanın amacı, iki farklı yapıştırma sistemi ile yapıştırılan metal ve seramik braketlerin çekme-bağlanma kuvvetlerini ve diş yüzeyindeki kopma alanlarını incelemektir.GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Altmış sekiz çürüksüz alt küçükazı diş rastgele 17’şer dişten oluşan 4 gruba bölünmüştür. 1. Grup; metal braketler Transbond XT ile, 2. Grup; metal braketler Clearfil S3 Bond Plus ile, 3. Grup; seramik braketler Transbond XT ile, 4. Grup; seramik braketler Clearfil S3 Bond Plus ile yapıştırılmıştır. Universal test cihazı ile çekme-bağlanma kuvvet değerleri ve sonrasında diş yüzeyinde kalan artık adeziv miktarı ölçülmüştür.BULGULAR: Metalik braketlerin bağlanma kuvvetleri seramik braketlerden istatistik olarak daha düşüktür. Clearfil S3 Bond ile bağlanan seramik braketler en yüksek ortalama bağlanma kuvvetini göstermişlerdir (p<0.001) ve kopma mine-adeziv yüzeyinde gerçekleşmiştir. Ancak, geleneksel yapıştırma sisteminde koheziv bağlantı hatası kompozit ile diş arasında gerçekleşmiştir ve bu durum gruplar arasında istatistiksel olarak önemli bir fark oluşmasına neden olmuştur (p<0.05).SONUÇ: Bütün yapıştırma sistemleri yeterli bağlanma kuvveti göstermişlerdir fakat yüksek bağlanma kuvvetinden ve ARI skorundan dolayı Clearfil S3 Bond Plus dikkatli kullanılmalıdır. Bu bulgulara dayanarak, geleneksel yapıştırma sistemlerinin seramik braketleri yapıştırmak için daha uygun olduğu sonucuna varılabilir. Metal braketler ise her iki sistemle de yapıştırılabilir.

Anahtar Kelimeler:

Bağlanma kuvveti, Braketler, Metal, Ortodonti, Ortodontik Gereçler, Ortodontik Yapıştırıcılar, Seramik

Comparison of bond strength of metallic and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVE: Adhesive systems used with brackets should provide sufficient bond strength to withstand forces duringmastication and orthodontic treatment. The purpose of this in vitro study was to assess the shear bond strength (SBS) and failure sites of different metallic and ceramic brackets by two different bonding systems.MATERIALS AND METHOD: Sixty-eight caries-free human mandibular premolars were randomly assigned to 4 groups of 17 each. Group 1 consisted of metallic brackets bonded with Transbond XT; Group 2 consisted of metallic brackets bonded with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus; ceramic brackets bonded with Transbond XT and Clearfil S3 Bond Plus composed Groups 3 and 4, respectively. A universal testing machine was used to determine the SBS, and the adhesive remaining after debonding was assessed using an adhesive remnant index (ARI).RESULTS: The bond strength of metallic brackets was significantly lower than the ceramic ones. Ceramic brackets bonded with Clearfil S3 Bond Plus declared the highest bond strength (p<0.001), revealing a mode of bond failure at the enamel-adhesive interface. However, the mode of failure for the conventional system was cohesive at the composite interface, showing a statistically significant difference between groups (p<0.05).CONCLUSION: Although all bonding systems provided adequate SBS values, Clearfil S3 Bond Plus requires a careful clinical application due to high bond strength and ARI scores. In relation to present findings, the conventional bonding system could be more suitable when ceramic brackets are bonded to enamel surface. Metal brackets can be bonded safely with both bonding systems.

Keywords:

Bond Strength, Brackets, Ceramic, Metal, Orthodontic Adhesives, Orthodontic Appliances, Orthodontics,

PDF

___

1. Uysal T, Ustdal A, Kurt G. Evaluation of shear bond strength of metallic and ceramic brackets bonded to enamel prepared with self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:214-8.
2. Ryu C, Namura Y, Tsuruoka T, Hama T, Kaji K, Shimizu N. The use of easily debondable orthodontic adhesives with ceramic brackets. Dent Mater J 2011;30:642-7.
3. Millett DT, Glenny AM, Mattick RCR, Hickman J, Mandall NA. Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2007;2:CD004485.
4. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2:171-8.
5. Turgut MD, Attar N, Korkmaz Y, Gokcelik A. Comparison of shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets bonded with flowable composites. Dent Mater J 2011;30:66-71.
6. Linklater RA, Gordon PH. Bond failure patterns in vivo. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2003;123:534-9.
7. Minick GT, Oesterle LJ, Newman SM, Shellhart WC. Bracket bond strengths of new adhesive systems. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2009;135:771-6.
8. Cehreli ZC, Kecik D, Kocadereli I. Effect of self-etching primer and adhesive formulations on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2005;127:573-9.
9. Arhun N, Arman A, Sesen C, Karabulut E, Korkmaz Y, Gokalp S. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets with 3 self-etch adhesives. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:547-50.
10. Attar N, Taner TU, Tülümen E, Korkmaz Y. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded using conventional vs one and two step self-etching/adhesive systems. Angle Orthod 2007;77:518-23.
11. Redd TB, Shivapuja PK. Debonding ceramic brackets: effects on enamel. J Clin Orthod 1991;25:475-81.
12. Bishara SE. Ceramic brackets and the need to develop national standards. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;117:595-7.
13. Oztaş E, Bağdelen G, Kiliçoğlu H, Ulukapi H, Aydin I. The effect of enamel bleaching on the shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod 2012;34:232-7.
14. Uysal T, Ustdal A, Nur M, Catalbas B. Bond strength of ceramic brackets bonded to enamel with amorphous calcium phosphate-containing orthodontic composite. Eur J Orthod 2010;32:281-4.
15. Joseph VP, Rossouw E. The shear bond strengths of stainless-steel and ceramic brackets used with chemically and light-activated composite resins. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97:121-5.
16. Mundstock KS, Sadowsky PL, Lacefield W, Bae S. An in vitro evaluation of a metal reinforced orthodontic ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;116:635-41.
17. Korbmacher H, Klocke A, Huck L, Kahl-Nieke B. Enamel conditioning for orthodontic bonding with a single step bonding agent. J Orofac Orthop 2002;63:463-71.
18. Mirzakouchaki B, Kimyai S, Hydari M, Shahrbaf S, MirzakouchakiBoroujeni P. Effect of self-etching primer/adhesive and conventional bonding on the shear bond strength in metallic and ceramic brackets. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012;17:e164-70.
19. Habibi M, Nik TH, Hooshmand T. Comparison of debonding characteristics of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets to enamel: an invitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2007;132:675-9.
20. Theodorakopoulou LP, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W Jr. Evaluation of the debonding characteristics of 2 ceramic brackets: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2004;125:329-36.
21. Bishara SE, Olsen ME, VonWald L. Evaluation of debonding characteristics of a new collapsible ceramic bracket. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:552-9.
22. Bishara SE, Fonseca JM, Boyer DB. The use of debonding pliers in the removal of ceramic brackets: force levels and enamel cracks. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;108:242-8.
23. Blalock KA, Powers JM. Retention capacity of the bracket bases of new esthetic orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:596-603