Cargando…

The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study

AIM: To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equ...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pereira, Pedro Mariano, Bugaighis, Iman, Matos, Pedro M., Porença, Luis
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36411804
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_61_22
_version_ 1784833259051417600
author Pereira, Pedro Mariano
Bugaighis, Iman
Matos, Pedro M.
Porença, Luis
author_facet Pereira, Pedro Mariano
Bugaighis, Iman
Matos, Pedro M.
Porença, Luis
author_sort Pereira, Pedro Mariano
collection PubMed
description AIM: To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equal groups to assess three techniques for the removal of residual adhesive from bracket bases: in Group A, each bracket base was sandblasted with aluminum oxide; in Group B(1), each base was cleaned superficially with a greenstone bur; and in Group B(2), the bases were thoroughly abraded with a greenstone bur. Subsequently, brackets were rebonded and the SBS and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), plus Tukey and Kruskal–Wallis post-hoc tests (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: The average SBSs were: Group A, 11.75 (±4.83) MPa; Group B(1), 8.22 (±4.01) MPa; and Group B(2), 7.54 (±2.85) MPa. No statistically significant differences in SBS were found between Groups A and B(1)(P = 0.051) and Groups B(1) and B(2)(P = 0.885), but there was a significant difference between Groups A and B(2)(P = 0.016). Regarding ARI scores, there were statistically significant differences between Groups A and B(2)(P < 0.001) and between B(1) and B(2)(P = 0.014), but not between Groups A and B(1)(P = 0.068). CONCLUSION: All reconditioning methods were found to have a positive effect, but the sandblasting technique performed best. Brackets reconditioned by sandblasting and superficial grinding mainly showed mixed-type failure, while in samples thoroughly reconditioned by greenstone bur, bonding failure occurred predominantly at the adhesive/bracket interface.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9674941
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-96749412022-11-20 The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study Pereira, Pedro Mariano Bugaighis, Iman Matos, Pedro M. Porença, Luis J Orthod Sci Original Article AIM: To evaluate the effect of three different reconditioning techniques on the shear bond strength (SBS) of rebonded brackets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-five orthodontic brackets were bonded to human premolar teeth using Transbond™ XT. After debonding, the samples were randomly assigned into equal groups to assess three techniques for the removal of residual adhesive from bracket bases: in Group A, each bracket base was sandblasted with aluminum oxide; in Group B(1), each base was cleaned superficially with a greenstone bur; and in Group B(2), the bases were thoroughly abraded with a greenstone bur. Subsequently, brackets were rebonded and the SBS and the adhesive remnant index (ARI) were determined. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), plus Tukey and Kruskal–Wallis post-hoc tests (P ≤ 0.05). RESULTS: The average SBSs were: Group A, 11.75 (±4.83) MPa; Group B(1), 8.22 (±4.01) MPa; and Group B(2), 7.54 (±2.85) MPa. No statistically significant differences in SBS were found between Groups A and B(1)(P = 0.051) and Groups B(1) and B(2)(P = 0.885), but there was a significant difference between Groups A and B(2)(P = 0.016). Regarding ARI scores, there were statistically significant differences between Groups A and B(2)(P < 0.001) and between B(1) and B(2)(P = 0.014), but not between Groups A and B(1)(P = 0.068). CONCLUSION: All reconditioning methods were found to have a positive effect, but the sandblasting technique performed best. Brackets reconditioned by sandblasting and superficial grinding mainly showed mixed-type failure, while in samples thoroughly reconditioned by greenstone bur, bonding failure occurred predominantly at the adhesive/bracket interface. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022-10-13 /pmc/articles/PMC9674941/ /pubmed/36411804 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_61_22 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Orthodontic Science https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Pereira, Pedro Mariano
Bugaighis, Iman
Matos, Pedro M.
Porença, Luis
The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title_full The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title_fullStr The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title_full_unstemmed The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title_short The effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: An in-vitro study
title_sort effect of different reconditioning methods on bond strength of rebonded brackets: an in-vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9674941/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36411804
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jos.jos_61_22
work_keys_str_mv AT pereirapedromariano theeffectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT bugaighisiman theeffectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT matospedrom theeffectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT porencaluis theeffectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT pereirapedromariano effectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT bugaighisiman effectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT matospedrom effectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy
AT porencaluis effectofdifferentreconditioningmethodsonbondstrengthofrebondedbracketsaninvitrostudy