A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice

The bonded brackets should have enough bond strength to withstand masticatory forces, and forces applied during orthodontic treatment and should enable easy debonding, clean up procedure at the end of the treatment without causing iatrogenic damage such as cracks and loss of enamel. Bond strength is...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of international oral health 2015-12, Vol.7 (12), p.33
Hauptverfasser: Vikram, S, Gomathi, Ajeetha, Aruna, J, Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan, Saranya, V
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page
container_issue 12
container_start_page 33
container_title Journal of international oral health
container_volume 7
creator Vikram, S
Gomathi, Ajeetha
Aruna, J
Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan
Saranya, V
description The bonded brackets should have enough bond strength to withstand masticatory forces, and forces applied during orthodontic treatment and should enable easy debonding, clean up procedure at the end of the treatment without causing iatrogenic damage such as cracks and loss of enamel. Bond strength is reported as the initial mechanical load (stress) to fracture divided by the simple geometrically defined cross-sectional area of the bond. Depending upon the mode and direction of the loading force different types of bond strengths are evident. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate shear and tensile bond strength of Metal-Chrome Cobalt TP Nu-edge L N bracket system with Primekote base and to compare it with that of 3M Gemini Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with woven mesh base and Ormco Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with Optimesh base. Shear and Tensile bond strength of three commercially available pre-adjusted edge-wise premolar brackets with different base designs were used for the study on 54 premolar teeth. Hounsfield Tensometer Universal Testing Machine was used to determine the shear and tensile bond strengths. Shear strength and tensile strength were calculated. Statistical analysis: Students' t-test and one-way ANOVA was performed. Ormco Optimesh brackets had the highest shear bond strength value of 20.08 MPa, followed by 3M Gemini bracket with a value of 16.22 MPa. The lowest bond strength value was noticed for TP Primekote brackets with 13.87 MPa. The tensile bond strength values of 3M Gemini brackets, Ormco Optimesh brackets and TP Primekote brackets were 7.42 MPa, 6.57 MPa and 7.31 MPa, respectively. The differences noted among the three brackets were not statistically significant. There was a significant difference in shear bond strength of the three brackets compared. There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength between the three brackets compared. Ormco Optimesh bracket and 3M Gemini bracket is a good choice for Orthodontic bonding in clinical practice.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_1776143765</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>4000803011</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-proquest_journals_17761437653</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqNS90KgjAYHVGQVO_wQdeC1nJ5mWJ0GRR0GcM-dba22qbQ27fCB-jcnP8RCaKUJWHM0nQ8aEZX2ylZWNtGHkm0onQTEL2DXD-e3HAneoSi57LzUivQFWRa3eDkDKraNcAfWtVwbgzi9-OdfENn8Tfhom4cXIRByAwv7-gsCAW5FEqUXMLRh06UOCeTikuLi4FnZLkvzvkhfBr96tC6a6s7o3x1jRlLYrpmyWb93-oD_QRL1g</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1776143765</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>PubMed Central</source><creator>Vikram, S ; Gomathi, Ajeetha ; Aruna, J ; Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan ; Saranya, V</creator><creatorcontrib>Vikram, S ; Gomathi, Ajeetha ; Aruna, J ; Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan ; Saranya, V</creatorcontrib><description>The bonded brackets should have enough bond strength to withstand masticatory forces, and forces applied during orthodontic treatment and should enable easy debonding, clean up procedure at the end of the treatment without causing iatrogenic damage such as cracks and loss of enamel. Bond strength is reported as the initial mechanical load (stress) to fracture divided by the simple geometrically defined cross-sectional area of the bond. Depending upon the mode and direction of the loading force different types of bond strengths are evident. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate shear and tensile bond strength of Metal-Chrome Cobalt TP Nu-edge L N bracket system with Primekote base and to compare it with that of 3M Gemini Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with woven mesh base and Ormco Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with Optimesh base. Shear and Tensile bond strength of three commercially available pre-adjusted edge-wise premolar brackets with different base designs were used for the study on 54 premolar teeth. Hounsfield Tensometer Universal Testing Machine was used to determine the shear and tensile bond strengths. Shear strength and tensile strength were calculated. Statistical analysis: Students' t-test and one-way ANOVA was performed. Ormco Optimesh brackets had the highest shear bond strength value of 20.08 MPa, followed by 3M Gemini bracket with a value of 16.22 MPa. The lowest bond strength value was noticed for TP Primekote brackets with 13.87 MPa. The tensile bond strength values of 3M Gemini brackets, Ormco Optimesh brackets and TP Primekote brackets were 7.42 MPa, 6.57 MPa and 7.31 MPa, respectively. The differences noted among the three brackets were not statistically significant. There was a significant difference in shear bond strength of the three brackets compared. There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength between the three brackets compared. Ormco Optimesh bracket and 3M Gemini bracket is a good choice for Orthodontic bonding in clinical practice.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0976-7428</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 0976-1799</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Mumbai: Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</publisher><subject>Adhesive bonding ; Bond strength ; Enamel ; Production methods</subject><ispartof>Journal of international oral health, 2015-12, Vol.7 (12), p.33</ispartof><rights>Copyright International Society of Preventive &amp; Community Dentistry Dec 2015</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,776,780</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Vikram, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomathi, Ajeetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aruna, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saranya, V</creatorcontrib><title>A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice</title><title>Journal of international oral health</title><description>The bonded brackets should have enough bond strength to withstand masticatory forces, and forces applied during orthodontic treatment and should enable easy debonding, clean up procedure at the end of the treatment without causing iatrogenic damage such as cracks and loss of enamel. Bond strength is reported as the initial mechanical load (stress) to fracture divided by the simple geometrically defined cross-sectional area of the bond. Depending upon the mode and direction of the loading force different types of bond strengths are evident. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate shear and tensile bond strength of Metal-Chrome Cobalt TP Nu-edge L N bracket system with Primekote base and to compare it with that of 3M Gemini Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with woven mesh base and Ormco Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with Optimesh base. Shear and Tensile bond strength of three commercially available pre-adjusted edge-wise premolar brackets with different base designs were used for the study on 54 premolar teeth. Hounsfield Tensometer Universal Testing Machine was used to determine the shear and tensile bond strengths. Shear strength and tensile strength were calculated. Statistical analysis: Students' t-test and one-way ANOVA was performed. Ormco Optimesh brackets had the highest shear bond strength value of 20.08 MPa, followed by 3M Gemini bracket with a value of 16.22 MPa. The lowest bond strength value was noticed for TP Primekote brackets with 13.87 MPa. The tensile bond strength values of 3M Gemini brackets, Ormco Optimesh brackets and TP Primekote brackets were 7.42 MPa, 6.57 MPa and 7.31 MPa, respectively. The differences noted among the three brackets were not statistically significant. There was a significant difference in shear bond strength of the three brackets compared. There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength between the three brackets compared. Ormco Optimesh bracket and 3M Gemini bracket is a good choice for Orthodontic bonding in clinical practice.</description><subject>Adhesive bonding</subject><subject>Bond strength</subject><subject>Enamel</subject><subject>Production methods</subject><issn>0976-7428</issn><issn>0976-1799</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><recordid>eNqNS90KgjAYHVGQVO_wQdeC1nJ5mWJ0GRR0GcM-dba22qbQ27fCB-jcnP8RCaKUJWHM0nQ8aEZX2ylZWNtGHkm0onQTEL2DXD-e3HAneoSi57LzUivQFWRa3eDkDKraNcAfWtVwbgzi9-OdfENn8Tfhom4cXIRByAwv7-gsCAW5FEqUXMLRh06UOCeTikuLi4FnZLkvzvkhfBr96tC6a6s7o3x1jRlLYrpmyWb93-oD_QRL1g</recordid><startdate>20151201</startdate><enddate>20151201</enddate><creator>Vikram, S</creator><creator>Gomathi, Ajeetha</creator><creator>Aruna, J</creator><creator>Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan</creator><creator>Saranya, V</creator><general>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</general><scope>04Q</scope><scope>04T</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7X7</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>8C1</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FH</scope><scope>8FI</scope><scope>8FJ</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BBNVY</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>FYUFA</scope><scope>GHDGH</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>K9.</scope><scope>LK8</scope><scope>M0S</scope><scope>M7P</scope><scope>PHGZM</scope><scope>PHGZT</scope><scope>PJZUB</scope><scope>PKEHL</scope><scope>PPXIY</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQGLB</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PRINS</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151201</creationdate><title>A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice</title><author>Vikram, S ; Gomathi, Ajeetha ; Aruna, J ; Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan ; Saranya, V</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-proquest_journals_17761437653</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Adhesive bonding</topic><topic>Bond strength</topic><topic>Enamel</topic><topic>Production methods</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Vikram, S</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gomathi, Ajeetha</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Aruna, J</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Saranya, V</creatorcontrib><collection>India Database</collection><collection>India Database: Health &amp; Medicine</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Public Health Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection</collection><collection>Hospital Premium Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection</collection><collection>Health Research Premium Collection (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Complete (Alumni)</collection><collection>ProQuest Biological Science Collection</collection><collection>Health &amp; Medical Collection (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Biological Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest Health &amp; Medical Research Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Middle East (New)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Health &amp; Nursing</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Applied &amp; Life Sciences</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>ProQuest Central China</collection><jtitle>Journal of international oral health</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Vikram, S</au><au>Gomathi, Ajeetha</au><au>Aruna, J</au><au>Rathinasamy, R Ranganathan</au><au>Saranya, V</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice</atitle><jtitle>Journal of international oral health</jtitle><date>2015-12-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>33</spage><pages>33-</pages><issn>0976-7428</issn><eissn>0976-1799</eissn><abstract>The bonded brackets should have enough bond strength to withstand masticatory forces, and forces applied during orthodontic treatment and should enable easy debonding, clean up procedure at the end of the treatment without causing iatrogenic damage such as cracks and loss of enamel. Bond strength is reported as the initial mechanical load (stress) to fracture divided by the simple geometrically defined cross-sectional area of the bond. Depending upon the mode and direction of the loading force different types of bond strengths are evident. Thus, the aim of this study is to evaluate shear and tensile bond strength of Metal-Chrome Cobalt TP Nu-edge L N bracket system with Primekote base and to compare it with that of 3M Gemini Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with woven mesh base and Ormco Metal-Stainless Steel bracket with Optimesh base. Shear and Tensile bond strength of three commercially available pre-adjusted edge-wise premolar brackets with different base designs were used for the study on 54 premolar teeth. Hounsfield Tensometer Universal Testing Machine was used to determine the shear and tensile bond strengths. Shear strength and tensile strength were calculated. Statistical analysis: Students' t-test and one-way ANOVA was performed. Ormco Optimesh brackets had the highest shear bond strength value of 20.08 MPa, followed by 3M Gemini bracket with a value of 16.22 MPa. The lowest bond strength value was noticed for TP Primekote brackets with 13.87 MPa. The tensile bond strength values of 3M Gemini brackets, Ormco Optimesh brackets and TP Primekote brackets were 7.42 MPa, 6.57 MPa and 7.31 MPa, respectively. The differences noted among the three brackets were not statistically significant. There was a significant difference in shear bond strength of the three brackets compared. There was no significant difference in the tensile bond strength between the three brackets compared. Ormco Optimesh bracket and 3M Gemini bracket is a good choice for Orthodontic bonding in clinical practice.</abstract><cop>Mumbai</cop><pub>Medknow Publications &amp; Media Pvt. Ltd</pub></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0976-7428
ispartof Journal of international oral health, 2015-12, Vol.7 (12), p.33
issn 0976-7428
0976-1799
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_journals_1776143765
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; PubMed Central
subjects Adhesive bonding
Bond strength
Enamel
Production methods
title A Comparative Evaluation of Bond Strength among Three Commonly used Straight Wire Brackets in Clinical Practice
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-19T03%3A11%3A01IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=A%20Comparative%20Evaluation%20of%20Bond%20Strength%20among%20Three%20Commonly%20used%20Straight%20Wire%20Brackets%20in%20Clinical%20Practice&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20international%20oral%20health&rft.au=Vikram,%20S&rft.date=2015-12-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=33&rft.pages=33-&rft.issn=0976-7428&rft.eissn=0976-1799&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest%3E4000803011%3C/proquest%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1776143765&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true