Shear bond strength of three different metal bracket base designs on human premolars: an in vitro comparative study
-
Nataly Corahua-Raymi [1] ; Seber Guardia-Huamani [1] ; Luis Cervantes-Ganoza [2] ; Leonor Castro-Ramírez [3] ; Carlos López-Gurreonero [1] ; Alberto Cornejo-Pinto [1] ; César Cayo-Rojas [1]
-
[1] Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal
Universidad Nacional Federico Villarreal
Perú
-
[2] Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega
Universidad Inca Garcilaso de la Vega
Perú
-
[3] Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista
Universidad Privada San Juan Bautista
Perú
-
- Localización: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry, ISSN-e 1989-5488, Vol. 16, Nº. 1 (January), 2024, págs. 78-83
- Idioma: inglés
- Enlaces
-
Resumen
Adequate bracket-enamel bonding is critical to prevent detachment during orthodontic treatment and minimize any potential delay in results. The aim was to compare the shear bond strength of three metal bracket base designs: laser-structured base, mesh base, and retention grooves base.
In this experimental in vitro study, 54 human premolars were immersed for one week in 0.1% thymol solution, then placed in distilled water with weekly replacement until the start of the study. The premolars were cemented with brackets of varying base designs: A. Discovery® Smart (laser structured), B. Mini Master® Series (base with mesh), and C. Roth Max (base with retention grooves). All brackets were cemented using TransbondTM XT. A universal testing machine was used to evaluate the shear bond strength at a crosshead speed of 0.75 mm/min. Welch’s one-factor ANOVA with robust variance and Tukey’s post hoc test were used to compare means, with a significance level of p<0.05.
The average shear bond strength values were for the bracket with laser-structured base (14.78 ± 5.79 MPa), the bracket with mesh base (9.64 MPa ± 2.54 MPa) and the bracket with retention groove base (15.38 MPa ± 2.67 MPa). It was found that brackets with mesh bases had significantly lower shear bond strength than brackets with laser-structured bases (p=0.001) and brackets with retention grooves bases (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed between the latter two types of brackets (p = 0.893).
The bracket base design influenced in vitro shear bond strength with significantly higher values observed for Roth Max and Discovery® Smart brackets compared to Mini Master® Series brackets.
