RESUMO
The purpose of the study was to assess the relative base designs of three different maxillary molar stainless steel brackets with reference to the shear bond strength of three different adhesive resins. The molar brackets used were Victory series (3M Unitek), Upper Molar (GAC) and Optimesh XRT (Ormco). The adhesives used were Transbond XT (3M Unitek), Enlight (Ormco) and Sure Ortho Light Bond (Sure Orthodontics). The human enamel specimens (144) were randomly divided into nine groups and each group (n=16) was allocated to a bracket/adhesive combination. The contact surface of each of the bracket bases was measured three dimensionally using a reflex microscope. The base designs were also subjected to further microscopic investigations. The brackets were bonded to the enamel, temperature cycled and the shear bond strength was measured. The size and design of each of the brackets was different. The base size, surface treatment, mesh strand diameter and aperture size of the bracket base mesh have a significant effect on the shear bond strength at the bracket/adhesive interface. The shear bond strengths of all three Ormco bracket/adhesive resin combinations (5.8-6.8 MPa) were significantly lower (p<0.05; Kruskal-Wallis) than the other six bracket/adhesive combinations (9.4-12.1 MPa). The different adhesive types (3 types) could not be mainly responsible for the low shear bond values found for the Ormco bracket. The 3M Unitek combination of the Victory series bracket and Transbond XT adhesive proved to have a high shear bond strength without enamel damage.
RESUMO
An investigation was conducted to determine a simple, effective method for reconditioning stainless steel orthodontic attachments in the orthodontic office. In total, 100 new brackets were bonded to premolar teeth, then debonded and the bond strength recorded as a control for the reconditioning process. The debonded brackets were divided into six groups and each group reconditioned using different techniques as follows: attachments in four groups were flamed and then either (1) sandblasted, (2) ultrasonically cleaned, (3) ultrasonically cleaned followed by silane treatment, (4) rebonded without further treatment. Of the two remaining groups, one was sandblasted, while the brackets in the other were roughened with a greenstone. The brackets were rebonded to the premolar teeth after the enamel surfaces had been re-prepared, and their bond strengths measured. The results indicated that sandblasting was the most effective in removing composite without a significant change in bond strength compared with new attachments. Silane application did not improve the bond strength values of flamed and ultrasonically cleaned brackets. Attachments that had only been flamed had the lowest bond strength, followed by those that had been roughened with a greenstone.
