|
The purpose of the present study was to seek bracket-adhesive combinations which have adequate bond strength with no enamel and bracket fracture. The shear bond strengths were measured, the sites of failure and the enamel damage were investigated and the peripheral sealing and adaptation between enamel surface, bonding adhesive and bracket were evaluated 240 noncarious human premolars were divided into twenty four groups of ten teeth. Shear bond strengths of each group were determined in an universal testing machine after two days passed and the debonded specimens were inspected to determine the predominant bond failure sites. To evaluate peripheral sealing and adaption between enamel surface, adhesive and bracket, each specimen was cut longitudinally into two halves which included the midsection of the bracket, adhesive and enamel and exmined in scanning electron microscope. Six different types of brackets were bonded to the tooth with four different type of adhesives. Six different types of brackets were Image, Plastic, Crystaiine, Fascination, Transcend 2000 and metal bracket and four different adhesives were No-mix, Light-Bond, OrthoLC and Superbond C&B. From this study, it may be concluded that (1) The mean shear bond strength varied from a high of 36.58 Kg (410.07 Kg/cm2) with the Fascination-Light Bond combination group to a low of 8.93 Kg (75.51 Kg/cm2) with the Image-O thoLC combination group. When using OrthoLC as adhesive, the mean shear bond strength was significantly lower than that of other combination groups, (2) Regardless of adhesives, the mean shear bond strength of Fascination brackets was relatively high whereas Plastic and Image brackets had low shear bonding strength The shear bond strength of Crystaline bracket and Transcend 2000 was relatively equal to or lower than that-of metal bracket, (3) There was a correlation between bond strength, enamel damage and bracket fracture. As the shear bond strength was increased, the rate of enamel damage and bracket fracture were increased, (4) The combination groups that use OrthoLC as adhesive were debonded in shear stress without enamel fracture and bracket fracture, whereas the combination groups that use Superbond C&B as adhesive experienc-d a relative high enamel fracture rate and bracket fracture rate, (5) Peripheral sealing and adaptation between enamel-adhesive-bracket were relatively good when using Light-Bond or No-mix as adhesive. Regardless of adhesives, adaptation between bracket-adhesive were relatively good in Ceramic brackets, (6) The combination groups which had adequate bonding strength with no enamel and bracket fracture were Crystaline-No mix, Crystaline-Light Bond, Crystaline-OrthoLC, metal-No mix, metal-Light Bond and metal-OrthoLC combination groups.
|