Comparison of Two Different Orthodontic Bracket Recycling Techniques

Abstract

Introduction: The cost of orthodontic treatment in most of the industrialized countries may considerably differ from those in third world countries. The lesser cost of orthodontic treatment, high pricing of orthodontic inventory and poor economic conditions of the people strengthen the notion of 'recycling' even more. Objectives:To compare the shear bond strengths of .022 slot pre-adjusted edgewise brackets with conventional mesh base design recycled by two different chair-side techniques, one being flaming/heating and other being sandblasting. Materials & Method:The sample involved eighty extracted human premolars with .022 slot pre-adjusted edgewise brackets (Orcmo, USA) bonded onto the lingual surface. After initial de-bonding the bracket base was studied under a scanning electron microscope at different magnifications for aperture size, mesh continuity and surface roughness. The brackets were re-bonded on to the labial surface of the same premolars and then debonded using a Universal Testing Machine to produce a shear force at the tooth bracket interface. The aim of any bracket recycling system is to remove the adhesive residue from the bracket base completely without causing structural damage, in order to eliminate all impurities related to orthodontic treatment, so that the bracket can be rebonded to the enamel surface producing a new adhesive bond of adequate strength. 4-7According to Tavares et al, 8 the methods of recycling brackets may be classified as Industrial (chemical and heating) and chair-side use of a tungsten carbide bur, heating and sandblasting.

Recycling Methods of Brackets and Their Effects: Literature Review

“…Freze etme yöntemi ile geri dönüştürülen braketler en düşük bağlanma dayanımına sahipken, kumlama yöntemi ile geri dönüştürülen braketler diğer yöntemlerden daha yüksek bağlanma dayanımı göstermiştir. 29,30 Kumar ve ark. 50 premolar diş üzerinde yaptıkları in vitro çalışmada; metal braketleri, 1.…”

Evaluation of anchorage loss of the upper first molar using two different retraction methods: A randomized clinical trial

“…4 The segmented arch mechanics seems to have a proper control on tooth movement if it compared to arch-wire guided tooth movement, as it suggests dividing the dental arch into three main parts, as this technique aimed at reducing the posterior teeth forward-movement. 5 Multiple studies [5][6][7][8][9] had discussed the anchorage loss and its effect on orthodontic treatment. Consequently, in this study, it aimed to understand and evaluate the anchorage loss of the molar using cone beam computed tomography (cbct).…”