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

<sec>
<h3>Introduction</h3>
<p>The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores of two different adhesive applications of aesthetic brackets produced from permanent crown material using 3D-printing technology.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Methods</h3>
<p>Sixty maxillary premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons were divided into two main groups according to the type of bracket (metal brackets <italic>n</italic>=30, 3D-printed brackets <italic>n</italic>=30) and further divided into two subgroups according to the type of adhesive (flowable composite, Tokuyama SuperLow; non-flowable composite; 3M Transbond XT). SBS and ARI score evaluations were conducted in the experimental and control subgroups (<italic>n</italic>=15). Statistical analysis was performed by a one-way analysis of variance, a post-hoc test, and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was accepted as <italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.05.</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Results</h3>
<p>The bond strength of the specimens was significantly affected by the type of composite and bracket type (<italic>P</italic> &lt; 0.001). However, the SBS values were within or above the desired range for orthodontic treatment in all groups. The highest SBS value was obtained in the Metal Bracket-Transbond XT group (15.03 ± 6.66), while the lowest SBS value was observed in the 3D-Printed Bracket-Transbond XT group (7.91 ± 3.07). It was noted that of all materials evaluated, the most common non-enamel-damaging adhesive–cohesive fractures were in 3D-Printed Bracket Tokuyama SuperLow group (<italic>n</italic>=13).</p>
</sec>
<sec>
<h3>Conclusions</h3>
<p>It is recommended that 3D-printed orthodontic brackets have sufficient and acceptable SBS levels for clinical applications and bonding using non-flowable adhesives to produce high SBS values and using flowable adhesives generating high ARI scores.</p>
</sec>
</abstract>

Introduction
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores of two different adhesive applications of aesthetic brackets produced from permanent crown material using 3D-printing technology.


Methods
Sixty maxillary premolar teeth extracted for orthodontic reasons were divided into two main groups according to the type of bracket (metal brackets n=30, 3D-printed brackets n=30) and further divided into two subgroups according to the type of adhesive (flowable composite, Tokuyama SuperLow; non-flowable composite; 3M Transbond XT). SBS and ARI score evaluations were conducted in the experimental and control subgroups (n=15). Statistical analysis was performed by a one-way analysis of variance, a post-hoc test, and Fisher’s exact test. Statistical significance was accepted as P < 0.05.


Results
The bond strength of the specimens was significantly affected by the type of composite and bracket type (P < 0.001). However, the SBS values were within or above the desired range for orthodontic treatment in all groups. The highest SBS value was obtained in the Metal Bracket-Transbond XT group (15.03 ± 6.66), while the lowest SBS value was observed in the 3D-Printed Bracket-Transbond XT group (7.91 ± 3.07). It was noted that of all materials evaluated, the most common non-enamel-damaging adhesive–cohesive fractures were in 3D-Printed Bracket Tokuyama SuperLow group (n=13).


Conclusions
It is recommended that 3D-printed orthodontic brackets have sufficient and acceptable SBS levels for clinical applications and bonding using non-flowable adhesives to produce high SBS values and using flowable adhesives generating high ARI scores.

A comparison of bond strength and adhesive remnant index of 3D-printed and metal orthodontic brackets attached using different adhesives

Australasian Orthodontic Journal

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

Introduction
The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the shear bond strength (SBS) and adhesive remnant index (ARI) scores of two different adhesive...

	ARI Scores
	0	1	2	3	4	P*
3D Print Bracket-Transbond XT	0	0	1	13	1
3D Print Bracket-Tokuyama SuperLow	0	4	3	7	1	0.008
Metal Bracket-Transbond XT	1	4	6	3	1
Metal Bracket-Tokuyama SuperLow	0	0	4	10	1

	Shear bond strength (MPa)
	Mean	Standard deviation	P*
3D Print Bracket-Transbond XT	7.91^A	3.07
3D Print Bracket-Tokuyama SuperLow	13.07^B	5.31
			<0.001
Metal Bracket-Transbond XT	15.03^B	6.66
Metal Bracket-Tokuyama SuperLow	8.32A	3.00

A comparison of bond strength and adhesive remnant index of 3D-printed and metal orthodontic brackets attached using different adhesives

Pubblicato online: 14 ago 2023

Pagine: 32 - 39

Ricevuto: 01 feb 2023

Accettato: 01 giu 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/aoj-2023-0024

© 2023 Kevser Kurt Demirsoy 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.

Distribution of Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI) Scores between the groups

Comparison of mean values of the shear bond strength of 3D Print bracket and metal brackets