Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement

Steve Martin, Franklin Garcia-Godoy

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths and enamel surface structure after debonding a conventional metal bracket and a polycrystalline ceramic bracket bonded with a bipolar zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement (F-21) or a light-cured resin cement (Transbond). Forty extracted human premolars were used. The buccal enamel surfaces were used, and the teeth randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth each: group 1: conventional metal bracket (Unitek) bonded with Transbond; group 2: metal bracket bonded with F-21; group 3: ceramic bracket (Transcend 2000) bonded with Transbond; and group 4: ceramic bracket bonded with F-21. The brackets were bonded to the etched enamel surfaces according to manufacturer's instructions. A specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5° C and 55° C. The specimens were mounted in dental stone and placed in the Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min with a knife-edged blade. Immediately after debonding, the enamel surface and bracket-enamel interface were evaluated visually and with a stereomicroscope. Representative samples were then examined with the scanning electron microscope. The analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were performed. The results in megapascals were Group 1: 19,6 (±9,6); group 2: 14,3 (±4,6); group 3: 28,8 (±12,6); and group 4: 18,5 (±7,5). Group 3 was statistically significantly different (P < 0.008) from all other groups. Groups 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different. Debonding occurred mainly at the bracket-resin interface in group 1 (two enamel fractures), mixed (bracket-resin, resin-enamel interface) in group 2, at the enamel-resin interface (with four specimens fracturing the enamel) in group 3, and at the bracket-resin interface (with one specimen fracturing the enamel) in group 4. The scanning electron microscope evaluation revealed that after debonding, the ceramic bracket group with Transbond had the roughest enamel surface. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1994;106:615-20.)

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)615-620
Number of pages6
JournalAmerican Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Volume106
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 1994
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Orthodontic Brackets
Polyvinyls
Zinc Oxide
Shear Strength
Dental Enamel
Ceramics
Tooth
Metals
Electrons
Resin Cements
Cheek
Bicuspid
Analysis of Variance

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Orthodontics

Cite this

Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement. / Martin, Steve; Garcia-Godoy, Franklin.

In: American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Vol. 106, No. 6, 01.01.1994, p. 615-620.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ba758a1e5c8e4298b7cb1ebce15d66d2,
title = "Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement",
abstract = "The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths and enamel surface structure after debonding a conventional metal bracket and a polycrystalline ceramic bracket bonded with a bipolar zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement (F-21) or a light-cured resin cement (Transbond). Forty extracted human premolars were used. The buccal enamel surfaces were used, and the teeth randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth each: group 1: conventional metal bracket (Unitek) bonded with Transbond; group 2: metal bracket bonded with F-21; group 3: ceramic bracket (Transcend 2000) bonded with Transbond; and group 4: ceramic bracket bonded with F-21. The brackets were bonded to the etched enamel surfaces according to manufacturer's instructions. A specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5° C and 55° C. The specimens were mounted in dental stone and placed in the Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min with a knife-edged blade. Immediately after debonding, the enamel surface and bracket-enamel interface were evaluated visually and with a stereomicroscope. Representative samples were then examined with the scanning electron microscope. The analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were performed. The results in megapascals were Group 1: 19,6 (±9,6); group 2: 14,3 (±4,6); group 3: 28,8 (±12,6); and group 4: 18,5 (±7,5). Group 3 was statistically significantly different (P < 0.008) from all other groups. Groups 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different. Debonding occurred mainly at the bracket-resin interface in group 1 (two enamel fractures), mixed (bracket-resin, resin-enamel interface) in group 2, at the enamel-resin interface (with four specimens fracturing the enamel) in group 3, and at the bracket-resin interface (with one specimen fracturing the enamel) in group 4. The scanning electron microscope evaluation revealed that after debonding, the ceramic bracket group with Transbond had the roughest enamel surface. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1994;106:615-20.)",
author = "Steve Martin and Franklin Garcia-Godoy",
year = "1994",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70086-9",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "106",
pages = "615--620",
journal = "American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics",
issn = "0889-5406",
publisher = "Mosby Inc.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets cemented with a zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement

AU - Martin, Steve

AU - Garcia-Godoy, Franklin

PY - 1994/1/1

Y1 - 1994/1/1

N2 - The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths and enamel surface structure after debonding a conventional metal bracket and a polycrystalline ceramic bracket bonded with a bipolar zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement (F-21) or a light-cured resin cement (Transbond). Forty extracted human premolars were used. The buccal enamel surfaces were used, and the teeth randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth each: group 1: conventional metal bracket (Unitek) bonded with Transbond; group 2: metal bracket bonded with F-21; group 3: ceramic bracket (Transcend 2000) bonded with Transbond; and group 4: ceramic bracket bonded with F-21. The brackets were bonded to the etched enamel surfaces according to manufacturer's instructions. A specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5° C and 55° C. The specimens were mounted in dental stone and placed in the Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min with a knife-edged blade. Immediately after debonding, the enamel surface and bracket-enamel interface were evaluated visually and with a stereomicroscope. Representative samples were then examined with the scanning electron microscope. The analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were performed. The results in megapascals were Group 1: 19,6 (±9,6); group 2: 14,3 (±4,6); group 3: 28,8 (±12,6); and group 4: 18,5 (±7,5). Group 3 was statistically significantly different (P < 0.008) from all other groups. Groups 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different. Debonding occurred mainly at the bracket-resin interface in group 1 (two enamel fractures), mixed (bracket-resin, resin-enamel interface) in group 2, at the enamel-resin interface (with four specimens fracturing the enamel) in group 3, and at the bracket-resin interface (with one specimen fracturing the enamel) in group 4. The scanning electron microscope evaluation revealed that after debonding, the ceramic bracket group with Transbond had the roughest enamel surface. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1994;106:615-20.)

AB - The purpose of this study was to compare the shear bond strengths and enamel surface structure after debonding a conventional metal bracket and a polycrystalline ceramic bracket bonded with a bipolar zinc oxide-polyvinyl cement (F-21) or a light-cured resin cement (Transbond). Forty extracted human premolars were used. The buccal enamel surfaces were used, and the teeth randomly divided into four groups of 10 teeth each: group 1: conventional metal bracket (Unitek) bonded with Transbond; group 2: metal bracket bonded with F-21; group 3: ceramic bracket (Transcend 2000) bonded with Transbond; and group 4: ceramic bracket bonded with F-21. The brackets were bonded to the etched enamel surfaces according to manufacturer's instructions. A specimens were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 300 cycles between 5° C and 55° C. The specimens were mounted in dental stone and placed in the Instron at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min with a knife-edged blade. Immediately after debonding, the enamel surface and bracket-enamel interface were evaluated visually and with a stereomicroscope. Representative samples were then examined with the scanning electron microscope. The analysis of variance and Student-Newman-Keuls tests were performed. The results in megapascals were Group 1: 19,6 (±9,6); group 2: 14,3 (±4,6); group 3: 28,8 (±12,6); and group 4: 18,5 (±7,5). Group 3 was statistically significantly different (P < 0.008) from all other groups. Groups 1, 2, and 4 were not significantly different. Debonding occurred mainly at the bracket-resin interface in group 1 (two enamel fractures), mixed (bracket-resin, resin-enamel interface) in group 2, at the enamel-resin interface (with four specimens fracturing the enamel) in group 3, and at the bracket-resin interface (with one specimen fracturing the enamel) in group 4. The scanning electron microscope evaluation revealed that after debonding, the ceramic bracket group with Transbond had the roughest enamel surface. (AM J ORTHOD DENTOFAC ORTHOP 1994;106:615-20.)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0028675457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0028675457&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70086-9

DO - 10.1016/S0889-5406(94)70086-9

M3 - Article

VL - 106

SP - 615

EP - 620

JO - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

JF - American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

SN - 0889-5406

IS - 6

ER -