TY - JOUR
T1 - Shear bond strength of three different metal bracket base designs on human premolars
T2 - An in vitro comparative study
AU - Corahua-Raymi, Nataly
AU - Guardia-Huamani, Seber
AU - Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis
AU - Castro-Ramírez, Leonor
AU - López-Gurreonero, Carlos
AU - Cornejo-Pinto, Alberto
AU - Cayo-Rojas, César
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© (2024), (Medicina Oral S.L.). All Rights Reserved.
PY - 2024
Y1 - 2024
N2 - Background: Adequate bracket-enamel bonding is critical to prevent detachment during orthodontic treatment and minimize any potential delay in results. The aim was to compare the shear bond strength of three metal bracket base designs: laser-structured base, mesh base, and retention grooves base. Material and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, 54 human premolars were immersed for one week in 0.1% thymol solution, then placed in distilled water with weekly replacement until the start of the study. The premolars were cemented with brackets of varying base designs: A. Discovery® Smart (laser structured), B. Mini Master® Series (base with mesh), and C. Roth Max (base with retention grooves). All brackets were cemented using TransbondTM XT. A universal testing machine was used to evaluate the shear bond strength at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Welch’s one-factor ANOVA with robust variance and Tukey’s post hoc test were used to compare means, with a significance level of p<0.05. Results: The average shear bond strength values were for the bracket with laser-structured base (14.78 ± 5.79 MPa), the bracket with mesh base (9.64 MPa ± 2.54 MPa) and the bracket with retention groove base (15.38 MPa ± 2.67 MPa). It was found that brackets with mesh bases had significantly lower shear bond strength than brackets with laser-structured bases (p=0.001) and brackets with retention grooves bases (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the latter two types of brackets (p = 0.893). Conclusions: The bracket base design influenced in vitro shear bond strength with significantly higher values observed for Roth Max and Discovery® Smart brackets compared to Mini Master® Series brackets.
AB - Background: Adequate bracket-enamel bonding is critical to prevent detachment during orthodontic treatment and minimize any potential delay in results. The aim was to compare the shear bond strength of three metal bracket base designs: laser-structured base, mesh base, and retention grooves base. Material and Methods: In this experimental in vitro study, 54 human premolars were immersed for one week in 0.1% thymol solution, then placed in distilled water with weekly replacement until the start of the study. The premolars were cemented with brackets of varying base designs: A. Discovery® Smart (laser structured), B. Mini Master® Series (base with mesh), and C. Roth Max (base with retention grooves). All brackets were cemented using TransbondTM XT. A universal testing machine was used to evaluate the shear bond strength at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Welch’s one-factor ANOVA with robust variance and Tukey’s post hoc test were used to compare means, with a significance level of p<0.05. Results: The average shear bond strength values were for the bracket with laser-structured base (14.78 ± 5.79 MPa), the bracket with mesh base (9.64 MPa ± 2.54 MPa) and the bracket with retention groove base (15.38 MPa ± 2.67 MPa). It was found that brackets with mesh bases had significantly lower shear bond strength than brackets with laser-structured bases (p=0.001) and brackets with retention grooves bases (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the latter two types of brackets (p = 0.893). Conclusions: The bracket base design influenced in vitro shear bond strength with significantly higher values observed for Roth Max and Discovery® Smart brackets compared to Mini Master® Series brackets.
KW - Shear strength
KW - bracket with mesh base
KW - bracket with retention groove base
KW - laser-structured bracket
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85185165670&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.4317/jced.61166
DO - 10.4317/jced.61166
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85185165670
SN - 1989-5488
VL - 16
SP - e78-e83
JO - Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry
JF - Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry
IS - 1
ER -