A Comparison of Shear-Peel Bond Forces of Flattened and Unaltered Brackets on Flattened and Curved Enamel Surfaces

Abstract

One aspect of bond strength testing that varies among researchers is the contour of the tooth and bracket bases that are tested. Unaltered teeth with as-manufactured brackets are the most commonly used combination. Flattened teeth with unaltered bracket bases and mechanically flattened teeth and brackets are also used. The intended purpose of this project was to determine the effect of tooth and bracket contour combinations on the shear, tension and torsional bond forces of bonded brackets. The crowns of two-hundred and four bovine incisors were potted in acrylic tubes with their facial surfaces slightly protruding. The facial surfaces of half of them were ground flat on a Wehmer model trimmer (The Wehmer Corporation, Lombard, IL). The remainder were contoured on a Wehmer model trimmer using a jig that rotated the tooth's facial surface on a radius of approximately 3 inches. One-hundred and two maxillary right central incisor brackets (3M Unitek, Monrovia, CA. Victory Series, .022 slot) were flattened, ten at a time with a 2000 N force on a self-leveling plate in the MTS Bionix testing machine (MTS Systems Corporation, Eden Prarie, MN). Another 102 brackets were unaltered. The Day 1 data set samples (shear-peel loading) were etched with 35% phosphoric acid gel and bonded with Transbond XT Light Cured Adhesive Paste (3m Unitek). This provided 17 specimens for each of four groups: curved tooth/curved bracket (C/C), curved tooth/flat bracket (C/F), flat tooth/curved bracket (F/C), and flat tooth/flat bracket (F /F). The samples were de-bonded in the MTS Bionix testing machine with the force applied parallel to the bracket base, (i.e., in shear-peel) and the peak forces were recorded. Due to large variations in the results and low forces compared with previously published studies from this laboratory, the bonding protocol and loading were altered for Day 2 testing. Rather than torsion loading, the shear-peel debond set was repeated. The following changes were made to the bonding protocol. The samples were pumiced following sanding and stored in fresh de-ionized water prior to bonding. The samples were also dried with compressed air following etching and the primer was thinned with compressed air. Following preparation the samples were debonded in the MTS Bionix testing machine and peak forces were recorded. These results were also inexplicably variable and relatively low. Day 3 samples, intended for torsion debonding, were bonded the same as the Day 2 samples except that a 3 7% phosphoric acid liquid (Reliance, Itasca IL) was used to etch the samples and a new bottle and tube of Trans bond XT Light Cured Adhesive Primer and Transbond XT Light Cured Adhesive Paste (3M Unitek) were used. The samples were also debonded in shear-peel in the MTS Bionix testing machine and peak forces were recorded. Despite the outlined efforts, these results were also scattered and relatively lower than obtained previously. An analysis of variance model was used to evaluate the bond forces and showed no statistical difference among the groups except that in the Day 2 data set the C/C group was significantly weaker than the F/F group (p= .0452). In the Day 3 data set the C/C group was also weaker than the F/F group though the results were not significant (p=.0739). There is a trend to suggest that the bracket base and crown curvatures may be important factors in determining shear bond force.