Quantitative analysis of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket base surfaces with a three-dimensional imaging system

Abstract

Objective: To investigate the three-dimensional structural features of three types of mechanically retentive ceramic bracket bases. Materials and Methods: One type of stainless steel (MicroArch, Tomy, Tokyo, Japan) and three types of ceramic maxillary right central incisor brackets-Crystaline MB (Tomy), INVU (TP Orthodontics, La Porte, Ind), and Inspire Ice (Ormco, Glendora, Calif)-were tested to compare and quantitatively analyze differences in the surface features of each ceramic bracket base using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), a three-dimensional (3D) optical surface profiler, and microcomputed tomography (micro-CT). One-way analysis of variance was used to find differences in bracket base surface roughness values and surface areas between groups according to base designs. Tukey's honestly significant differences tests were used for post hoc comparisons. Results: SEM revealed that each bracket exhibited a unique surface texture (MicroArch, double mesh; Crystaline MB, irregular; INVU, single mesh; Inspire Ice, bead ball). With a 3D optical surface profiler, the stainless steel bracket showed significantly higher surface roughness values. Crystaline MB had significantly higher surface roughness values than Inspire Ice. Micro-CT demonstrated that stainless steel brackets showed significantly higher whole and unit bracket base surface areas. Among ceramic brackets, INVU showed significantly higher whole bracket base surface area, and Crystaline MB showed a significantly higher unit bracket base surface area than Inspire Ice. Conclusion: Irregular bracket surface features showed the highest surface roughness values and unit bracket base surface area among ceramic brackets, which contributes to increased mechanically retentive bracket bonding strength. (Angle Orthod. 2013;83:705-711.)

Priming and bonding metal, ceramic and polycarbonate brackets

“…), and each required a different debonding force. The more irregular the base of the bracket, the higher the surface roughness, which creates mechanical retention [56]. The small spheres of the ceramic brackets provide large surface area and undercut areas, which seem to provide better retention than the mesh on the metal bracket or the square protuberances on the polycarbonate bracket, even though the height difference of the base texture was lowest in the ceramic bracket (Figures 2-4).…”

Ultrashort pulsed laser conditioning of human enamel: in vitro study of the influence of geometrical processing parameters on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets

“…The brackets are the basis of contemporary orthodontics on which treatments are built to treat all types of malocclusions [1][2][3][4][5]. A proper bracket-enamel adhesion is essential to successfully complete these treatments.…”

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

“…Scanning electron microscopic analysis also revealed different characteristics in each bracket base surface. The mesh base in the preadjusted bracket is one of the methods used to increase mechanical retention [ 27 ]. In customized bracket systems, only the Insignia bracket used a mesh base; other companies applied different designs to provide adequate bond strength, such as increasing bonding surface, occlusal clasps, and sandblasting to the bracket base [ 28 , 29 ].…”

“…In customized bracket systems, only the Insignia bracket used a mesh base; other companies applied different designs to provide adequate bond strength, such as increasing bonding surface, occlusal clasps, and sandblasting to the bracket base [ 28 , 29 ]. The exception to mechanical retention was the silane coating, which improved chemical retention in the Incognito system [ 27 , 29 – 32 ]. With these special base treatments and large bonding surfaces, the customized bracket systems demonstrated high debonding forces; however, the shear bond strength represented an opposite pattern, especially within the lingual customized bracket systems, such as Incognito and Harmony, which exhibit >3-fold larger bonding area than the preadjusted and labial customized brackets.…”