scholarly journals A Clinical Comparison of Failure Rates of Metallic and Ceramic Brackets: A Twelve-Month Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Tomasz Ogiński ◽  
Beata Kawala ◽  
Marcin Mikulewicz ◽  
Joanna Antoszewska-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Fixed Appliance ◽  
Clinical Comparison ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Clinically Significant

Objective. Clinical comparison of the survival rates between stainless steel and ceramic brackets over a 12-month period. Materials and Methods. The study involved 20 consecutive patients with diagnosed malocclusion that required two-arch fixed appliance treatment. The participants were randomly divided into two 10-member groups. Group 1 was treated with Abzil Agile (3M Unitek) stainless steel brackets; group 2 was treated with Radiance (American Orthodontics) monocrystalline ceramic brackets. All the brackets were bonded by the same operator. Over the next 12 months, all bracket failures were recorded with each appointment. The received data were processed statistically using the Mantel–Cox test, Kaplan–Meier method, and Cox hazard model. Results. A total of 381 brackets were bonded, 195 of which were metallic brackets and 186 were ceramic ones. In the 12-month observation period, there were 14 metal (7.2%) and 2 ceramic bracket (1.1%) failures. The overall failure rate was 4.2% (n = 16). The majority of failures (14 brackets; 87.5%) occurred during the first 6 months of the experiment, 12 (83%) of which were metal brackets and 2 (100%) were ceramic brackets. The statistical analysis revealed significant differences between the groups (p<0.05). Conclusions. Metal brackets demonstrated significantly higher failure rates than ceramic brackets for both 6- and 12-month observation periods (p<0.05). The 6% difference between the brackets is clinically significant as it corresponds to one additional failure within 12 months.

scholarly journals Microleakage under Metallic and Ceramic Brackets Bonded with Orthodontic Self-Etching Primer Systems

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1089-1094 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tancan Uysal ◽  
Mustafa Ulker ◽  
Sabri Ilhan Ramoglu ◽  
Huseyin Ertas
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Phosphoric Acid ◽  
White Spot Lesions ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Acid Gel

Abstract Objective: To compare the in vitro microleakage of orthodontic brackets (metal and ceramic) between enamel-adhesive and adhesive-bracket interfaces at the occlusal and gingival sides produced by self-etching primer system with that of conventional acid etching and bonding. Materials and Method: Sixty freshly extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were used in this study. The teeth were separated into four groups of 15 teeth each and received the following treatments: Group 1, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + stainless steel bracket; Group 2, Transbond Plus Self-Etching Primer (TSEP) + stainless steel bracket; Group 3, 37% phosphoric acid gel + Transbond XT liquid primer + ceramic bracket; Group 4, TSEP + ceramic bracket. After curing, specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsine for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for microleakage for the enamel-adhesive and bracket-adhesive interfaces from both occlusal and gingival margins. Statistical analyses were performed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The gingival sides in all groups exhibited higher microleakage scores compared with those observed in occlusal sides for both adhesive interfaces. Enamel-adhesive interfaces exhibited more microleakage than did the adhesive-bracket interfaces. Brackets bonded with self-etching primer system showed significantly higher microleakage at the enamel-adhesive interface of the gingival side. Conclusions: TSEP causes more microleakage between enamel-adhesive interfaces, which may lead to lower bond strength and/or white-spot lesions.

The Influence of Bracket Material, Ligation Force and Wear on Frictional Resistance of Orthodontic Brackets

1993 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 109-115 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Keith ◽  
S. P. Jones ◽  
E. H. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Abrasive Wear ◽  
Single Crystal ◽  
Wear Debris ◽  
Aluminium Oxide ◽  
Frictional Resistance ◽  
Material Force ◽  
Orthodontic Bracket ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket

Planar static frictional phenomena were investigated for two types of ceramic and one type of stainless steel orthodontic bracket against rectangular stainless steel archwire. The brackets studied were ‘Starfire’ (single crystal aluminium oxide), ‘Allure III’ (polycrystalline aluminium oxide), and ‘Dentaurum’ (stainless steel). The investigative parameters were: bracket material, force of ligation and whether the brackets were new or ‘worn’. Without exception, both types of ceramic bracket produced greater frictional resistance than the stainless steel brackets throughout testing. At a ligation force of 500 g, the Starfire bracket gave the greatest frictional resistance. At ligation forces of 200 and 50 g, the greatest frictional resistance was seen with Allure III. After a period of simulated wear, frictional resistance of Starfire tended to increase at the greatest ligation load while that of both ceramics decreased slightly at the two lower ligation loads. The ceramic brackets caused abrasive wear of the archwire surfaces and the consequent wear debris may have contributed to the changes in frictional resistance seen with Starfire and Allure III. Dentaurm brackets produced minimal frictional resistance in any test and negligible change with wear.

scholarly journals Microleakage beneath Ceramic and Metal Brackets Bonded with a Conventional and an Antibacterial Adhesive System

2006 ◽  
Vol 76 (6) ◽  
pp. 1028-1034 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neslihan Arhun ◽  
Ayca Arman ◽  
Sevi Burçak Çehreli ◽  
Serdar Arıkan ◽  
Erdem Karabulut ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adhesive System ◽  
White Spot Lesions ◽  
Adhesive Interface ◽  
Group 4 ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 3 ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Nail Varnish

Abstract Objective: To assess microleakage of a tooth-adhesive-bracket complex when metal or ceramic brackets were bonded with a conventional and an antibacterial self-etching adhesive. Materials and Methods: Forty freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four equal groups and received the following treatments: group 1 = Transbond XT + metal bracket, group 2 = Transbond XT + ceramic bracket, group 3 = Clearfil Protect Bond + ceramic bracket, and group 4 = Clearfil Protect Bond + metal bracket. After photopolymerization, the teeth were kept in distilled water for 1 month and thereafter subjected to thermal cycling (500 cycles). Specimens were further sealed with nail varnish, stained with 0.5% basic fuchsin for 24 hours, sectioned and examined under a stereomicroscope, and scored for marginal microleakage for the adhesive-tooth and bracket-adhesive interfaces from incisal and gingival margins. Statistical analysis was accomplished by Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U-test with Bonferroni correction. Results: All groups demonstrated microleakage between the adhesive-enamel and bracket-adhesive interfaces. A significant difference was observed among all groups (P &lt; .05) for the microleakage between the bracket-adhesive interface. Metal brackets exhibited significantly more microleakage than did ceramic brackets between the bracket-adhesive interface with either of the adhesives. Clearfil Protect Bond exhibited results similar to Transbond XT. Clearfil Protect Bond may be a choice of adhesive in bracket bonding because of its antibacterial activity and similar microleakage results with the orthodontic adhesive. Conclusions: Metal brackets cause more leakage between an adhesive-bracket interface, which may lead to lower clinical shear bond strength and white-spot lesions.

scholarly journals Comparison of Survival Rates of Stainless-Steel Crowns Placed with and without Pulpotomy: A Two-Year Retrospective Study

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Fatmah N. AlMotawah ◽  
Sharat Chandra Pani ◽  
Tala AlKharashi ◽  
Saleh AlKhalaf ◽  
Mohammed AlKhathlan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
General Anesthesia ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Survival Outcome ◽  
Survival Outcomes ◽  
Proximal Caries ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Chi Squared

Aim. This study aimed to retrospectively compare the survival outcomes over two years between teeth with proximal dental caries that were restored with stainless-steel crowns to those that were pulpotomized and then restored with a stainless-steel crown in patients who were rehabilitated under general anesthesia. Participants and Methods. The records of 131 patients aged between two to six years who had stainless-steel crowns placed under general anesthesia and had two-year follow-up were screened. 340 teeth with moderate proximal caries on the radiograph (D2) were included in the study. Of these, 164 teeth were treated with a pulpotomy and stainless-steel crown, while 176 teeth were crowned without a pulpotomy. The type of each tooth was compared using the Chi-squared test and Kaplan–Meier survival analysis, and curves were plotted based on the two-year outcomes. Results. Treatment: the sample comprised 59 males (mean age 4.73 years, SD ± 1.4 years) and 72 females (mean age 5.2 years, SD ± 2.0 years). The Kaplan–Meier regression model showed no significant difference in survival outcomes between teeth that had been pulpotomized and those that had not ( p  = 0.283). Conclusion. Within the limitations of the current study, we can conclude that performing a pulpotomy does not influence the survival outcome of mild/moderate proximal caries restored with stainless-steel crowns under general anesthesia.

scholarly journals PDTM-24. PINEOBLASTOMA SEGREGATES INTO MOLECULAR SUBTYPES WITH DISTINCT CLINICOPATHOLOGIC FEATURES: REPORT FROM THE RARE BRAIN TUMOUR CONSORTIUM

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (Supplement_6) ◽  
pp. vi192-vi192
Author(s):  
Bryan Li ◽  
Alexandre Vasiljevic ◽  
Christelle Dufour ◽  
Ben Ho ◽  
Eugene Hwang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Brain Tumour ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Mirna Biogenesis ◽  
Consensus Clustering ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Excellent Outcome ◽  
Treatment Regimens ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Whole Exome ◽  
Group 2

Abstract BACKGROUND Pineoblastoma (PB) is a rare but aggressive pediatric brain tumour arising from the pineal gland. Overall survival rates are estimated at 50–70%, with younger patients (< 5 years old) faring much worse (15–40%) despite intensive treatment regimens. Although germline RB1 and DICER1 alterations have been reported in a small proportion of PB, the clinical significance of such alterations and the biology of sporadic cases remains unknown. METHODS We collected tumor tissue from 93 PB cases diagnosed at their referring centres. We undertook global DNA methylation profiling and performed multiple orthogonal consensus clustering analyses to elucidate PB subgroups. Chromosomal copy number alterations were determined using Conumee and GISTIC2, and whole exome or targeted sequencing was completed. Clinical data was analyzed with correlative statistical methods and outcomes were measured by Kaplan-Meier survival estimates. RESULTS PB comprise five epigenetic groups, designated 1, 2, 3, 4A, and 4B. Deleterious, mutually exclusive alterations affecting miRNA biogenesis pathway members (DICER1, DROSHA, and DGCR8) were observed in 12/21 group 1 and 11/11 group 2 samples. Group 4A was characterized by recurrent RB1 loss and gain of the oncogenic miR-17/92, and group 4B by recurrent gain or amplification of MYC. These groups also exhibit distinct clinical features. PB groups 1–3 arose in older children (median ages 5.2–14.0 years) and had intermediate to excellent outcome (5-year OS of 71.9–100%). Group 4A and 4B were restricted to much younger children (median age 1.3–1.4 years) and had dismal prognoses (5-year OS 37.5% and 28.6%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS PB divides into five groups with distinct genetic and clinical profiles. These findings will have important implications for precise patient stratification and form the foundation for preclinical studies of biology-informed therapies.

scholarly journals Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system

2012 ◽  
Vol 83 (4) ◽  
pp. 705-711 ◽  
Author(s):  
Da-Young Kang ◽  
Sung-Hwan Choi ◽  
Jung-Yul Cha ◽  
Chung-Ju Hwang
Keyword(s):  
Surface Roughness ◽  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Surface Area ◽  
Three Dimensional ◽  
Micro Ct ◽  
Base Surface ◽  
Surface Areas ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Base

ABSTRACT Objective: To investigate the three-dimensional structural features of three types of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket bases. Materials and Methods: One type of stainless steel (MicroArch, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan) and three types of ceramic maxillary right central incisor brackets—Crystaline MB (Tomy), INVU (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), and Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, Calif)—were tested to compare and quantitatively analyze differences in the surface features of each ceramic bracket base using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), a three-dimensional (3D) optical surface profiler, and microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). One-way analysis of variance was used to find differences in bracket base surface roughness values and surface areas between groups according to base designs. Tukey's honestly significant differences tests were used for post hoc comparisons. Results: SEM revealed that each bracket exhibited a unique surface texture (MicroArch, double mesh; Crystaline MB, irregular; INVU, single mesh; Inspire Ice, bead ball). With a 3D optical surface profiler, the stainless steel bracket showed significantly higher surface roughness values. Crystaline MB had significantly higher surface roughness values than Inspire Ice. Micro-CT demonstrated that stainless steel brackets showed significantly higher whole and unit bracket base surface areas. Among ceramic brackets, INVU showed significantly higher whole bracket base surface area, and Crystaline MB showed a significantly higher unit bracket base surface area than Inspire Ice. Conclusion: Irregular bracket surface features showed the highest surface roughness values and unit bracket base surface area among ceramic brackets, which contributes to increased mechanically retentive bracket bonding strength.

scholarly journals Survival Rates of Class II Restoration in Primary Molar with Flowable Resin Composite

2021 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-20
Author(s):  
Hyejun Seo ◽  
Soyoung Park ◽  
Eungyung Lee ◽  
Taesung Jeong ◽  
Jonghyun Shin
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Survival Rate ◽  
Resin Composite ◽  
Survival Rates ◽  
Class Ii ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Primary Molar ◽  
Proximal Caries ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Significant Difference

The purpose of this retrospective study was to evaluate the survival rate by comparing Class II restoration using flowable resin composite with stainless steel crown in primary molars.Electronic medical records and radiographs of 1,504 primary molars with proximal caries of 590 patients from June 2015 to August 2019 were analyzed. With the collected data, survival analysis was performed using the Kaplan-Meier method.The 1-year survival rate of flowable resin composite in the primary molar was 98.5%, 3-year survival rate was 87.7%, and mean survival time was 39 months. There was no statistically significant difference between flowable resin composite and stainless steel crown (<i>p</i> = 0.896).Within the limits of this study, Class II restoration using flowable resin composite can be considered a promising option for the treatment of proximal caries in primary molars.

scholarly journals Comparison of Friction in Sliding Mechanics Using Different Ligation Methods on Ceramic Bracket with Metal Slot and Epoxy Resin-Coated Stainless Steel Esthetic Wire: An in Vitro Study

2019 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-108 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hina Desai ◽  
Fenil Manishkumar Gandhi ◽  
Kalpesh Patel ◽  
Sarvesh Agrawal
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Epoxy Resin ◽  
Artificial Saliva ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
Kinetic Friction ◽  
Intergroup Comparison ◽  
Wet Condition ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Elastic Modules

Introduction: The friction generated during orthodontic treatment seems of concern in terms of anchorage and treatment duration. Different ligation methods have been developed to reduce the friction as compared with regular elastic modules. This study aimed to evaluate and to compare static and kinetic friction generated in ceramic brackets with metal slot and epoxy resin-coated stainless steel esthetic wire by using different ligation materials in wet condition (artificial saliva). Materials and Methods: A total of 40 epoxy-coated stainless steel wires and metal slot ceramic brackets were divided into 4 groups of 10 each and ligated using 4 different methods as follows: (1) super slick elastic modules, (2) slide elastic modules, (3) Teflon-coated esthetic stainless steel wire, and (4) regular elastic modules. They were then immersed in artificial saliva for 1 hour before testing their static and kinetic friction using a universal testing machine. Results: The intergroup comparison showed statistically significant differences for static and kinetic friction among all the 4 groups, where group 2 (slide modules) showed the least static as well as kinetic friction as compared with the other 3 groups. Conclusions: (1) Slide modules produced the least amount of friction compared with all other methods of ligation when epoxy resin-coated stainless steel archwire was used in ceramic bracket with 0.22˝ metal slot in wet condition. (2) Super slick modules produced the least friction in comparison with regular elastomeric and Teflon-coated ligature groups but produced greater friction than slide modules. (3) Teflon-coated stainless steel ligature produced the highest friction; however, it was not statistically significant when compared with the conventional elastic ligature. (4) In all clinical situations during the retraction stage, a large amount of friction is created in the buccal segment; hence, it is advisable to use slide modules in the buccal segment to reduce static and kinetic friction.

scholarly journals Enamel Cracks and Ceramic Bracket Failure during Debonding In Vitro

2008 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1078-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir E. Bishara ◽  
Adam Wade Ostby ◽  
John Laffoon ◽  
John J. Warren
Keyword(s):  
Failure Patterns ◽  
Bonding System ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
Ceramic Brackets ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Ceramic Bracket ◽  
Bracket Failure

Abstract Objective: To test the null hypothesis that no difference in bracket failure characteristics is noted when use of a new ceramic bracket debonding instrument is compared with the use of conventional pliers. Materials and Methods: Thirty maxillary premolars were randomly assigned to one of two groups. In group 1, Clarity collapsible ceramic brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were debonded with the use of conventional Utility/Weingart (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) pliers. In group 2, Clarity brackets were debonded with a new Debonding Instrument (3M Unitek). For all teeth, the same bracket bonding system was used. Following debonding, teeth and brackets were examined under 10× magnification for assessment of bracket failure (fracture) and of residual adhesive on the enamel surface. Enamel surfaces were visualized with transillumination prior to bonding and after removal of the residual adhesive, so the effect of the debonding forces could be determined. Results: The results of Adhesive Remnant Index comparisons indicated that a statistically significant difference (χ2 = 8.73; P = .013) in bond failure patterns was apparent when the two groups were compared. Brackets debonded with the new instrument showed a greater tendency for the adhesive to be removed from the tooth during debonding. Conclusions: The hypothesis is rejected. Although the incidence of enamel damage following debonding was similar in the two groups, the use of the new Debonding Instrument decreased the incidence of bracket fracture.

scholarly journals Clinical bond failure rates of adhesive precoated self-ligating brackets using a self-etching primer

2013 ◽  
Vol 84 (1) ◽  
pp. 155-160 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mete Ozer ◽  
Mehmet Bayram ◽  
Cagri Dincyurek ◽  
Fuat Tokalak
Keyword(s):  
Survival Rates ◽  
Surface Preparation ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Bond Failure ◽  
Kaplan Meier ◽  
Adhesive Remnant Index ◽  
Combined Use ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
First Time

ABSTRACT Objective: To comparatively assess the failure rate of adhesive precoated (APC) self-ligating metal brackets bonded with two different enamel surface preparation techniques: self-etching primer (SEP) and conventional two-step etch and primer method (CM). Materials and Methods: Fifty-seven patients with complete permanent dentition were included in this study. A total of 1140 APC self-ligating brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif) were bonded using a split-mouth design. For each patient, SEP (Transbond Plus SEP, 3M Unitek) and CM (37% phosphoric acid) were used in alternate quadrants. All brackets were bonded by the same investigator after pumicing and rinsing of all of the teeth. The number, site, and date of first-time bracket failures were monitored throughout orthodontic treatment (mean, 22 months). The survival rates of the brackets were estimated by Kaplan-Meier and log-rank tests (P &lt; .05). The adhesive remnant index was used to determine the bond failure interface. Results: The bond failure rates were 2.97% and 2.18% for the CM and SEP, respectively. No statistically significant difference in failure rates was found between the groups. The bond failure sites were predominantly at the enamel-adhesive interface in both groups. Conclusion: This long-term in vivo study showed that the combined use of SEP and the APC bracket system can be used effectively for bonding brackets after pumicing the enamel surfaces in clinical orthodontics.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document