Shear Bond Strength of Rebonded Self Ligating Ceramic Brackets after Different Reconditioning Procedures (A comparative an In vitro Study)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different recycling methods on shear bond strength and morphological changes of deboned mechanically retentive self-ligating ceramic brackets, then compare the findings with the new brackets of the same company. Material and methods: Forty-eight Damon® Clear™ self-ligating ceramic brackets with a mechanical retentive base were divided into two groups; the first group contained twelve new ceramic brackets (the control group), while the second group contained thirty-six new brackets which were bonded to unetched and slightly wet buccal tooth surface to allow an easy debonding of these brackets by tweezer, these debonded brackets then divided into three experimental (recycled) groups (12 per group): Recycled by sandblasting, irradiation by an Er, Cr: YAG laser and irradiation by CO2 laser. After recycling, the 36 recycled brackets plus the twelve new brackets (the control) were bonded to the forty-eight premolar teeth again following standardized bonding procedure. The teeth were stored in distilled water at 37EšC for 24 hours, then thermal cycling was performed between 5EšC and 55EšC for 500 cycles, the exposure to each bath was 30 seconds, and the transfer time between the two baths was 5-10 seconds, the shear bond strength of all specimens was determined with a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until bond failure occurred. The adhesive remnant index (ARI) was calculated under a stereomicroscope at X10 magnification. Morphological examinations of the recycled ceramic brackets bases were conducted with scanning electron microscopy. Result: There were highly significant differences in the mean of shear bond strength values among all groups using ANOVA F-test; furthermore, the mean shear bond strength of new brackets had the highest mean value of 22.899 Mpa, followed by Er,Cr:YSGG laser group 20.288 Mpa, then sandblasted group of 11.415 Mpa, while CO2 laser group had the lowest mean shear bond strength value of 2.994 Mpa; furthermore, the results showed significant difference in adhesive remnant index (ARI). Scanning electronic microscope photographs of ceramic brackets processed by sandblasting showed that all the adhesive was removed from the bracket's base, but destroyed the bracket's base as micro retentive structures was smoothed, in Er,Cr:YGSS group, a little adhesive remnants were observed underneath the meshwork and maintained the integrity of the micro structure of the bracket's base, while the brackets that reconditioned by CO2 laser revealed a considerable amount of residual adhesive on the overall bracket's base and in the hollows of the micro structure, while its structure was kept unchanged. Conclusion: all reconditioning methods would result in clinically acceptable shear bond strength, except CO2 laser method. The Er,Cr:YGSS recycling method can effectively remove the adhesive from the bases of ceramic brackets without damaging them; thus, this method may be preferred over other recycling methods.

[1]  Meisam Moradi,et al.  Shear Bond Strength of Rebonded Ceramic Brackets Using Four Different Methods of Adhesive Removal , 2018, Journal of dentistry.

[2]  H. Aghili,et al.  Effect of Er:YAG Laser and Sandblasting in Recycling of Ceramic Brackets. , 2017, Journal of lasers in medical sciences.

[3]  A. Mohammadi,et al.  Comparison of multiple rebond shear strengths of debonded brackets after preparation with sandblasting and CO2 laser , 2016, Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects.

[4]  H. Aghili,et al.  Comparison of shear bond strength of rebonded brackets with four methods of adhesive removal , 2014, Lasers in Medical Science.

[5]  R. Nalçacı,et al.  Lasers in orthodontics , 2013, European journal of dentistry.

[6]  Toshiya Endo,et al.  Shear bond strength of rebonded brackets after removal of adhesives with Er,Cr:YSGG laser , 2011, Odontology.

[7]  Y. Reddy,et al.  Comparative Evaluation of Four Office Reconditioning Methods for Orthodontic Stainless Steel Brackets on Shear Bond Strength—an in Vitro Study , 2010 .

[8]  R. Nalçacı,et al.  Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Cured with Different Light Sources under Thermocycling , 2010, European journal of dentistry.

[9]  E. Karabulut,et al.  Effect of resin-removal methods on enamel and shear bond strength of rebonded brackets. , 2009, The Angle orthodontist.

[10]  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.

[11]  M. Toroğlu,et al.  Effects of sandblasting and silica coating on the bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. , 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]  R. Lalloo,et al.  Xeno III self-etching adhesive in orthodontic bonding: the next generation. , 2007, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[13]  N. Arıcı,et al.  Effects of thermocycling on the bond strength of a resin-modified glass ionomer cement: an in vitro comparative study. , 2003, The Angle orthodontist.

[14]  K. Titley,et al.  The influence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. , 2003, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[15]  F. Mante,et al.  Shear bond strength of rebonded mechanically retentive ceramic brackets. , 2002, American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial orthopedics : official publication of the American Association of Orthodontists, its constituent societies, and the American Board of Orthodontics.

[16]  O. Keith Contemporary orthodontics , 2002, Morecambe Bay Medical Journal.

[17]  Aisha M Basudan,et al.  The Effects of In-office Reconditioning on the Morphology of Slots and Bases of Stainless Steel Brackets and on the Shear/Peel Bond Strength , 2001, Journal of orthodontics.

[18]  S. D. Hogg,et al.  Bond strength to surface enamel for different tooth types. , 2001, Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials.

[19]  G. Kulkarni,et al.  Optimization of a procedure for rebonding dislodged orthodontic brackets. , 1999, The Angle orthodontist.

[20]  A. Laino,et al.  Recycling effects on ceramic brackets: a dimensional, weight and shear bond strength analysis. , 1997, European journal of orthodontics.

[21]  D. J. Buchman Effects of recycling on metallic direct-bond orthodontic brackets. , 1980, American journal of orthodontics.

[22]  J. V. von Fraunhofer,et al.  Direct Bonding of Orthodontic Attachments to Teeth: The Relation of Adhesive Bond Strength to Gauze Mesh Size , 1976, British journal of orthodontics.

[23]  S. A. Mohammed,et al.  Evaluation of a new orthodontic bonding system (Beauty Ortho Bond) , 2015 .

[24]  R. Fekrazad,et al.  Reconditioning of ceramic orthodontic brackets with an Er,Cr:YSGG laser , 2012, Lasers in Medical Science.

[25]  D. F. Nouer,et al.  The effect of repeated bracket recycling on the shear bond strength of different orthodontic adhesives , 2008 .

[26]  P. Major,et al.  Shear/peel bond strength of repositioned ceramic brackets. , 1995, The Angle orthodontist.

[27]  S. Djeng,et al.  Recycling ceramic brackets. , 1990, Journal of clinical orthodontics : JCO.

[28]  B. Zachrisson Bonding in orthodontics , 1985 .