Creep Behavior of Resin Composite Interface Between Orthodontic Brackets and Enamel.

PURPOSE: The present study investigated the creep of adhesive resin under constant loading at the orthodontic bracket/enamel interface with an orthodontic bracket-tooth model (shear creep) and three-point bending test (bending creep). MATERIALS AND METHODS: For the bracket-tooth model, sixty premolars were assigned to 4 groups (n = 15). Orthodontic brackets were bonded onto the enamel surface using four different bonding agents: conventional, homogeneous Transbond XT orthodontic composite (group 1/TBC); Transbond XT composite reinforced with photopolymerized glass-fiber-reinforced composite (FRC with bidirectional fibers) (group 2/TBE); Transbond XT reinforced with FRC of vertically oriented unidirectional fibers (group 3/TBV); and Transbond XT reinforced with FRC of horizontally oriented fibers (group 4/TBH). Load was applied at the bracket/tooth interface and from the bracket wire slot. In the three-point bending test, the creep and recovery of the rectangular interface materials were tested by a dynamic mechanical analyzer. The data obtained were statistically analyzed with ANOVA and a post-hoc test using SPSS v20 statistical software. RESULTS: The groups exhibited significant differences in strain % and time for bracket deflection at the interface (p < 0.05). The interface loading with unidirectional fibers (groups TBV and TBH) were statistically significantly different compared to the interface with bidirectional fibers and control group (groups TBE and TBC). The three-point test showed the least creep compliance (ie, creep deformation occurring at each time point [J]) with group TBC, followed by groups TBV and TBE. Group TBC showed the highest nanohardness and elastic modulus; the lowest values were seen in group TBE, reflecting differences in polymer matrix composition. CONCLUSION: The creep and time for debonding the bracket increased with incorporation of glass fibers at the interface between bracket and enamel.

From body-on-frame to unibody constructions and designs mimicking biological structures - an overview.

In dentistry, isotropic materials, such as metals, ceramics, and polymers, are used. Their properties are not related to any specific direction of the material microstructure. There is a trend toward non-metallic, adhesive, and minimally invasive dentistry. This is in line with the conceptual change seen in the automobile industry, in which the basis of car structures has changed from body-on-frame designs to unibody designs. In unibody designs, all structural parts of the body of the car mechanically form a single structural entity. In modern adhesive dentistry, remaining tooth substance and the dental material form unibody designs, enabling preservation of tooth substance. Biological structures are created to withstand loading and are light in weight. The structural designs of elements in these biological materials are, to a large extent, based on fibrous material. More attention has been paid to mimicking fibrous structures of dental hard tissues by synthetic fiber-reinforced composites. This overview reports key features of natural fibrous elements and how they are utilized in dentistry. Special emphasis is placed on the aspects of interfacial adhesion of restorative materials, especially ceramics to resin-based materials and their role in the unibody design of the tooth-restoration system.

Effect of two-step and one-step surface conditioning of glass ceramic on adhesion strength of orthodontic bracket and effect of thermo-cycling on adhesion strength.

PURPOSE: The adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to dental glass ceramics was evaluated after ceramic surface was treated with two-step and one-step surface conditioning systems, and subjecting to thermo-cycling. MATERIALS AND METHOD: A total of forty specimens were fabricated from silica based glass ceramic (lithium disilicate) by duplicating the buccal surface of maxillary first premolar. The specimens were randomly assigned to two experimental groups (n = 20), group one specimens were treated with two-step surface conditioning system (IPS ceramic etching gel™ and Monobond plus™) and group two specimens were treated with one-step surface conditioning system (Monobond etch and prime™). The surface roughness of the specimens after treatment with two-step and one-step surface conditioning system was measured using non-contact surface profilometer. Ten randomly selected specimens from each group were subjected to thermo-cycling and the remaining ten served as baseline. The shear bond strength of the specimens was measured using universal material testing machine. The adhesive remnant index score was calculated, and the results of surface roughness and bond strength were tabulated and subjected to analysis of variance and post hoc tukey's test at a significance level of p < 0.05. RESULTS: The results of the study showed that the specimens treated with two-step conditioning system had higher surface roughness and bond strength than one-step conditioning system. The majority of the specimens treated with both two-step and one-step conditioned specimens showed adhesive failure after subjecting thermo-cycling. CONCLUSIONS: Traditional two-step conditioning provides better bond strength. The clinical importance of the study is that, the silane promoted adhesion significantly reduces on exposure to thermo-cycling.

Influence of premolar extraction or non-extraction orthodontic therapy on the angular changes of mandibular third molars.

AIM: To compare the angular changes of the third molars relative to the occlusal plane and to the second molar long axis in extraction group and compare these changes with a non extraction group. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study included pre and post treatment panoramic radiograph records of 90 subjects treated by first premolar extractions and 90 subjects who had been treated with non extraction orthodontic therapy (n = 90). Two angular variables were measured. Firstly, the angle between the long axis of the third molar and the occlusal plane (M3-OP) and secondly, the angle between the long axis of the third molar and the long axis of the second molar (M3-M2). Data were analyzed by paired and student's t-test. RESULT: The analyzed data to assess the changes in the third molar angulation from pretreatment to post treatment did not vary significantly in both the groups (p < 0.05). Both the groups showed decreased angular values. The M3-OP angular difference was (-7.3 ± 2.45) in extraction group as compared to (-5.85 ± 1.77) in non extraction group. The M3-M2 angular difference of (-4.26 ± 3.11) in extraction group and (-2.98 ± 1.74) in non-extraction group was observed. CONCLUSION: Extraction of premolars did not demonstrate considerable changes on the angulation of the third molars. The factors other than premolar extractions may influence the angulation of the third molars.

Influence of tooth brushing on adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to porcelain.

BACKGROUND: Adhesive resin composite, which is used to bond orthodontic bracket to tooth surface is exposed to the influence of wear by tooth brushing and wear may influence loosening of the bracket. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate in vitro the effect of tooth brushing on the adhesion strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to surface treated porcelain. METHOD: A total of 90 glazed porcelain fused to metal facets (PFM) were randomly assigned into 3 groups according to the surface treatment to be received. Group 1 was conditioned with hydrofluoric acid (HF), group 2 conditioned with grit-blasting (GB) and group 3 conditioned with tribochemical silica coating (RC). The groups were evaluated for surface roughness (Ra) before and after surface treatment. Next, 15 samples from each group were subjected to brushing and remaining 15 samples served as the baseline (n=15). Adhesion strength (shear bond strength)was recorded using a universal testing machine. Data collected were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's multiple comparison post hoc analysis. RESULTS: Tooth brushing decreased the bond strength in all groups. The highest adhesion strength (baseline and after brushing) was observed in group 3 (26.8 ± 1.77 MPa and 23.57 ± 1.02 MPa) and the lowest was found in group 1 (9.6 ± 1.5 MPa and 5.87 ± 0.77 MPa). Group 3 specimens exhibited the highest Ra (1.24 ± 0.08). CONCLUSION: It was found that tooth brushing of the exposed adhesive resin composite at the bracket-bonding substrate interface lowers the bonding strength regardless of the surface treatment of the substrate.