Dental Journal of Advance Studies

Register      Login

VOLUME 11 , ISSUE 2 ( May-August, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Recycled Ceramic Brackets with Er,Cr:YSGG and Sandblasting: An In Vitro Study

Vikas Grack Chaudhary, Prerna Hoogan Teja, Shruti Mittal, Mahak Gagain, Aashee Verma, Ramanpreet Kour

Keywords : Er,Cr:YSGG, Sandblasting, Shearbond Strength

Citation Information : Chaudhary VG, Teja PH, Mittal S, Gagain M, Verma A, Kour R. Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Recycled Ceramic Brackets with Er,Cr:YSGG and Sandblasting: An In Vitro Study. 2023; 11 (2):56-61.

DOI: 10.5005/djas-11014-0013

License: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0

Published Online: 31-08-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: This study was performed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) of recycled ceramic brackets with Er,Cr:YSGG, and Sandblasting. Materials and methods: A total of 120 noncarious, sound premolars extracted for routine orthodontic treatment were used in this study. These teeth were mounted in polyvinyl cynometha tubes (20 mm × 32 mm) with the use of self-polymerizing acrylic resin. These samples were divided into six groups (Groups A, B, C, D, E, and F). Both monocrystalline and polycrystalline ceramic brackets were used in our study. Groups A and B were the control groups, whereas Groups C, D, E, and F were the study groups. The SBS of all the samples was determined with the help of universal testing machines at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min until bond failure. Bracket base surfaces were observed under a scanning electron microscope. Analysis of variance and Tukey test were used to compare the SBS of all six groups. The adhesive remanent index was calculated under a stereomicroscope at 10× magnification. Results: Maximum SBS was observed in Group A (control group, bonded with new Monocrystalline ceramic brackets; 8.01 MPa) and minimum in Group E (sandblasted, polycrystalline ceramic brackets; 5.87 MPa). Conclusion: Both sandblasting and laser treatment were efficient for recycling polycrystalline and monocrystalline ceramics.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Karamouzos A, Athanasiou AE, Papadopoulos MA. Clinical characteristics and properties of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112(1):34–40. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70271-3.
  2. Jen A, Duggal R, Mehrotra A. Physical properties and clinical characteristics of ceramic brackets: A comprehensive review. Trends Biomater Artif Organs 2007;20(2). Corpus ID: 136673749.
  3. Bishara SE, Fehr DE. Ceramic brackets: Something old, something new, a review. Semin Orthod 1997;3(3):178–188. DOI: 10.1016/s1073-8746(97)80068-0.
  4. Mui B, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. Optimization of a procedure for rebonding dislodged orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthod 1999;69(3):276–281. DOI: 10.1043/0003-3219(1999)069<0276:OOAPFR>2.3.CO;2.
  5. Swartz ML. Ceramic brackets. J Clin Orthod 1988;22(2):82–88. PMID: 3075208.
  6. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975;2(3):171–178. DOI: 10.1080/0301228X.1975.11743666.
  7. Zain A, Al-Khatieeb M. Shear bond strength of rebonded self ligating ceramic brackets after. J Res Med Dent Sci 2020;8(1):144–151.
  8. Ahrari F, Fekrazad R, Kalhori KA, et al. Reconditioning of ceramic orthodontic brackets with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Lasers Med Sci 2013;28(1):223–228. DOI: 10.1007/s10103-012-1093-4.
  9. Kachoei M, Mohammadi A, Moghaddam ME, et al. Comparison of multiple rebond shear strengths of debonded brackets after preparation with sandblasting and CO2 laser. J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects 2016;10(3):148–154. DOI: 10.15171/joddd.2016.024.
  10. Chung CH, Friedman SD, Mante FK. Shear bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2002;122(3):282–287. DOI: 10.1067/mod.2002.125994.
  11. Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Damon P, et al. Evaluation of Scotchbond Multipurpose and maleic acid as alternative methods of bonding orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;111(5):498–501. DOI: 10.1016/s0889-5406(97)70286-5.
  12. Gwinnett AJ. A comparison of shear bond strengths of metal and ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1988;93(4):346–348. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(88)90165-5.
  13. Maskeroni AJ, Meyers Jr CE, Lorton L. Ceramic bracket bonding: A comparison of bond strength with polyacrylic acid and phosphoric acid enamel conditioning. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990;97(2):168–175. DOI: 10.1016/0889-5406(90)70090-Y.
  14. Lew KK, Chew CL, Lee KW. A comparison of shear bond strengths between new and recycled ceramic brackets. Eur J Orthod 1991;13(4):306–310. DOI: 10.1093/ejo/13.4.306.
  15. Ishida K, Endo T, Shinkai K, et al. Shear bond strength of rebonded brackets after removal of adhesives with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Odontology 2011;99(2):129–134. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-011-0012-7.
  16. Yassaei S, Aghili H, Hosseinzadeh Firouzabadi A, et al. Effect of Er:YAG laser and sandblasting in recycling of ceramic brackets. J Lasers Med Sci 2017;8(1, Winter):17–21. DOI: 10.15171/jlms.2017.04. Epub 2017 Jan 8.
  17. Toroğlu MS, Yaylali S. Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2008;134(2):181e1–181e7. DOI: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.05.012.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.