Assessment of Bracket Surface Morphology and Dimensional Change

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare the surface morphology and dimensional stability of the bracket slot at the onset of treatment and after 12 months of intraoral exposure. The study also compared the amount of calcium at the bracket base which indicates enamel loss among the three orthodontic brackets following debonding after 12 months of intraoral exposure. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 60 (0.022” MBT) canine brackets. They were divided into three groups: self-ligating, ceramic bracket with metal slot, and stainless steel (SS) brackets. The slot dimensions, micromorphologic characteristics of as-received and retrieved brackets were measured with a stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope (SEM), respectively. The amount of calcium at the bracket base which indicates enamel damage was quantified using energy-dispersive X-ray spectrometry (EDX). Results: The results showed statistically significant alterations (P < 0.05) in the right vertical dimension, internal tie wing width (cervical), right and left depth of the slot (Kruskal–Wallis test). Multiple comparison using Mann–Whitney test showed that ceramic brackets underwent (P < 0.05) minimal alterations in the right vertical dimension, internal tie wing width (cervical), right and left depth of the slot (0.01 mm, −0.003 mm, 0.006 mm, −0.002 mm, respectively) when compared with the changes seen in SS and self-ligating brackets. SEM analysis revealed an increase in the surface roughness of ceramic with metal slot brackets and self-ligating bracket showed the least irregularity. The presence of calcium was noted on all evaluated brackets under EDX, but ceramic with metal slot brackets showed a significantly greater amount of enamel loss (P = 0.001). Conclusion: Ceramic brackets were found to be dimensionally stable when compared to SS and self-ligating. Self-ligating bracket showed minimal surface irregularity. Ceramic with metal slot brackets showed a greater amount of enamel loss following debonding.

[1]  M. Pithon,et al.  Effect of time and pH on physical-chemical properties of orthodontic brackets and wires. , 2015, The Angle orthodontist.

[2]  M. Pithon,et al.  Physical and chemical properties of orthodontic brackets after 12 and 24 months: in situ study , 2014, Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB.

[3]  Rogério Lacerda dos Santos,et al.  Evaluation of physical properties of esthetic brackets after clinical use: Study in situ , 2013 .

[4]  A. Gracco,et al.  Bracket base remnants after orthodontic debonding. , 2013, The Angle orthodontist.

[5]  F. Amini,et al.  Variations in surface roughness of seven orthodontic archwires: an SEM-profilometry study , 2012, Korean journal of orthodontics.

[6]  T. Eliades,et al.  Comparative assessment of clinical performance of esthetic bracket materials. , 2012, The Angle orthodontist.

[7]  P. Soares,et al.  Biodegradation of orthodontic metallic brackets and associated implications for friction. , 2011, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[8]  Gi-Ja Lee,et al.  A quantitative AFM analysis of nano-scale surface roughness in various orthodontic brackets. , 2010, Micron.

[9]  J. Warren,et al.  Comparison of bonding time and shear bond strength between a conventional and a new integrated bonding system. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[10]  J. Ghafari.  Problems associated with ceramic brackets suggest limiting use to selected teeth. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[11]  J. Sandy,et al.  Corrosion of orthodontic appliances--should we care? , 2008, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[12]  F. Amini,et al.  In vivo study of metal content of oral mucosa cells in patients with and without fixed orthodontic appliances. , 2008, Orthodontics & craniofacial research.

[13]  T. Brosh,et al.  In vivo debonding strength and enamel damage in two orthodontic debonding methods. , 2005, Journal of biomechanics.

[14]  T. Eliades,et al.  Intraoral aging of orthodontic materials: the picture we miss and its clinical relevance. , 2005, American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics.

[15]  R. Kusy,et al.  Resistance to sliding of orthodontic brackets with bumps in the slot floors and walls: effects of second-order angulation. , 2004, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[16]  T. Eliades,et al.  Materials-induced variation in the torque expression of preadjusted appliances. , 2004, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[17]  J. Årtun,et al.  Evaluation of friction during sliding tooth movement in various bracket-arch wire combinations. , 1999, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[18]  W. Rock,et al.  Distortion of metallic orthodontic brackets after clinical use and debond by two methods. , 1999, British journal of orthodontics.

[19]  P. Shivapuja,et al.  A comparative study of conventional ligation and self-ligation bracket systems. , 1994, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[20]  J. Odegaard,et al.  Shear bond strength of metal brackets compared with a new ceramic bracket. , 1988, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[21]  C. Shen,et al.  The effects of debonding on the enamel surface. , 1984, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[22]  A. Balakrishnan,et al.  Reliability performance of titanium sputter coated Ni-Ti arch wires: mechanical performance and nickel release evaluation. , 2015, Bio-medical materials and engineering.

[23]  F. Miculescu,et al.  Electron microscopy analysis of different orthodontic brackets and their adhesion to the tooth enamel. , 2014, Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie.

[24]  Samjin Choi,et al.  Changes in ultrastructure and properties of bracket slots after orthodontic treatment with bicuspid extraction. , 2011, Scanning.

[25]  W. Magness.  Orthodontic brackets. , 2011, Journal of the American Dental Association.