PLoS ONE (Jan 2018)

Debonding force and shear bond strength of an array of CAD/CAM-based customized orthodontic brackets, placed by indirect bonding- An In Vitro study.

  • Ha-Na Sha,
  • Sung-Hwan Choi,
  • Hyung-Seog Yu,
  • Chung-Ju Hwang,
  • Jung-Yul Cha,
  • Kwang-Mahn Kim

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0202952
Journal volume & issue
Vol. 13, no. 9
p. e0202952

Abstract

Read online

Based on three-dimensional scanning and computer-aided design and computer-aided manufacturing (CAD/CAM) techniques, customized bracket systems are increasingly used. However, data remain limited regarding customized bracket design, characteristics, and stability. This study was undertaken to evaluate the design, bond strength, and residual adhesives of four different CAD/CAM customized brackets that were attached to human tooth specimens by indirect bonding. Thirty extracted human upper premolars were divided into five groups: Group 1, preadjusted self-ligating labial metal bracket; Group 2, lingual self-ligating metal injection molding customized bracket; Group 3, gold-casted lingual customized bracket; Group 4, labial self-ligating milled customized bracket; Group 5, labial customized resin base bracket. Except in Group 1, premolar specimens were scanned via model scanner, and the images were sent to each manufacturing company to fabricate customized brackets and transfer trays/jigs. Debonding force (DF; N) was measured by Instron universal testing machine and shear bond strength (SBS; MPa) was calculated via dividing DF by bonding area. Adhesive remnants were analyzed via stereo microscopic images. Group 2 (196.90±82.75 N) exhibited significantly higher DF than Group 1 (62.77±12.65 N); other groups exhibited similar DFs, compared with Group 1. No customized bracket groups exhibited significant differences in SBS, relative to Group 1 (6.73±1.36 MPa). However, SBS in Group 5 (11.46±7.22 MPa) was significantly higher than in Group 3 (3.58±2.14 MPa). Group 3 had significantly lower ARI scores than other groups (P<0.05). Customized brackets exhibited large deviations in DF and SBS; all customized bracket systems exhibited DF that was equivalent or superior to that of preadjusted brackets, even when placed by indirect bonding.