<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<sec>
<h3>Objectives:</h3>
<p>This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) related to surface treatment methods of debonded brackets before indirect rebonding and to evaluate changes in SBS related to sandblasting time.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Methods:</h3>
<p>After brackets were debonded from a dental cast during an indirect bonding procedure, seven groups were assigned to conduct SBS tests. Sandblasted groups were sprayed with Al<sub>2</sub>O<sub>3</sub> for 3 s (Group II), 6 s (Group III), 9 s (Group IV), and 12 s (Group V). In Group VI, a no. 4 round low-speed bur was used to remove resin. In Group VII, the bracket base was coated with a plastic conditioner (Reliance, IL, USA) and Group I served as the control group.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results:</h3>
<p>The SBS of Group VII was not statistically different from that of the control group. The SBS of Group VI was not statistically different from that of Group II but higher than that of the control group (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05). There was no statistical difference between Groups III, IV, and V, but was greater than the other groups (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusion:</h3>
<p>The group with surface treatment by sandblasting for more than 6 sec prior to indirect bonding recorded a higher SBS than the other groups. The SBS did not increase further even if the sandblasting time increased by more than 9 sec.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Objectives:
This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) related to surface treatment methods of debonded brackets before indirect rebonding and to evaluate changes in SBS related to sandblasting time.


Methods:
After brackets were debonded from a dental cast during an indirect bonding procedure, seven groups were assigned to conduct SBS tests. Sandblasted groups were sprayed with Al2O3 for 3 s (Group II), 6 s (Group III), 9 s (Group IV), and 12 s (Group V). In Group VI, a no. 4 round low-speed bur was used to remove resin. In Group VII, the bracket base was coated with a plastic conditioner (Reliance, IL, USA) and Group I served as the control group.


Results:
The SBS of Group VII was not statistically different from that of the control group. The SBS of Group VI was not statistically different from that of Group II but higher than that of the control group (P < 0.05). There was no statistical difference between Groups III, IV, and V, but was greater than the other groups (P < 0.05).


Conclusion:
The group with surface treatment by sandblasting for more than 6 sec prior to indirect bonding recorded a higher SBS than the other groups. The SBS did not increase further even if the sandblasting time increased by more than 9 sec.

Comparison of the shear bond strength of reconditioned metal brackets used in indirect bonding: an in vitro pilot study

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Objectives:
This study aimed to compare the shear bond strength (SBS) related to surface treatment methods of debonded brackets before indirect rebonding and...

Shear bond strength(MPa)
Group	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum	N	Scheffe*
I	9.1	3.0	5.4	13.6	24	A
II	16.8	2.1	13.3	18.2	24	B
III	21.0	2.8	16.9	25.8	24	C
IV	21.4	3.0	16.7	26.0	24	C
V	20.2	2.9	15.9	25.8	24	C
VI	16.7	1.8	15.3	19.4	24	B
VII	11.2	2.2	7.7	12.9	24	A

ARI score
Group	1	2	3	4	5	n
I	14	10	0	0	0	24
II	10	8	6	0	0	24
III	2	12	10	0	0	24
IV	3	12	9	0	0	24
V	4	13	7	0	0	24
VI	9	9	6	0	0	24
VII	13	11	0	0	0	24

Group	Description
I	No treatment
II	Sandblasting for 3 sec
III	Sandblasting for 6 sec
IV	Sandblasting for 9 sec
V	Sandblasting for 12 sec
VI	Low speed round bur
VII	Conditioned with adhesion booster

Score	The evaluation criteria(remained adhesive on the tooth)
1	All
2	More than 90%
3	Between 10 and 90%
4	Less than 10%
5	No adhesive

Comparison of the shear bond strength of reconditioned metal brackets used in indirect bonding: an in vitro pilot study

Pubblicato online: 30 gen 2023

Pagine: 27 - 34

Ricevuto: 01 set 2022

Accettato: 01 dic 2022

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2023-0001

© 2023 Seong-Sik Kim et al., published by Sciendo

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Descriptive statistics of shear bond strength. See Table I for group description.

Frequency distributions of adhesive remnant index scores. See Table I for group description.

Group description.

Adhesive remnant index criteria.