Original Article

Shear Bond Strength of Metal Brackets on Enamel

Paola Cozzaa; Leonardo Martuccib; Laura De Toffolb; Santiago Isaza Pencoc
ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the shear bond strength of different metal orthodontic brackets. Materials and Methods: Five types of orthodontic metal brackets were selected (S1, Victory Series, 3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif; S2, Mini Dyna-Lock, 3M Unitek; S3, Mini Sprint, Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany; S4, Topic, Dentaurum, Inspringen, Germany; and S5, equilibrium 2, Dentaurum). Brackets were bonded on enamel surfaces of bovine incisors (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek) and were tested for shear bond strength with an Instron universal testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass). Data obtained in newtons and megapascals were analyzed with descriptive statistics and with analysis of variance and Tukey honestly signicant difference (HSD) tests. The adhesive fracture site was classied with the adhesive remnant index (ARI). Results: All the specimens tested had shear bond strength adequate to resist orthodontic forces. S5 showed signicantly greater bond strength when compared with the other samples, except for S1. S1, S3, and S5 showed a signicantly greater bonding force. The ARI index demonstrated a large variability. Retentive structure of S1, S3, and S5 had equal validity. The enlargement of the retentive surface enhances adhesion but affects the adaptability to surface irregularity of the enamel, increasing the risk of fracture at the interface with the bracket. Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that probably the retentive base extension can be lower than 7 mm2 proposed in previous studies as the minimal area. KEY WORDS: Bracket; Adhesion; Shear bond strength; ARI index

INTRODUCTION The introduction of the acid etching technique by Buonocore1 allowed the substitution of metal bands with directly cemented brackets.2 Mitchell,3 in 1967, was the rst author to report on the use of metal bracket with a retentive base. The adhesion of metal brackets is obtained with mechanic interlock between base-adhesive resin-enamel. Many types of metal bracket bases exist, and they can be classied into two principal groups: brackets with soldered bases and brackets with integral bases. In the rst group, the metal bases are soldered to the bracket bodies. The bases used in this class are
a Professor and Head, Department of Orthodontics, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. b Fellow, Department of Orthodontics, University of Rome, Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy. c Graduate, Department of Orthodontics, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena and Reggio Emilia, Italy. Corresponding author: Dr. Paola Cozza, via Veio 53, Rome 00183, Italy (e-mail: p.cozza@ashnet.it)

Accepted: September 2005. Submitted: June 2005. 2006 by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation, Inc.
DOI: 10.2319/061205-201 851

perforated bases, mesh foils, and photoetched bases. In the second group, the base and the remaining parts of the bracket are a unique piece. Four types of bases belong to this group: retention groove bases, mesh bases, wafe bases, and laser-structured bases. The base retentive system is only one of the factors that inuences the shear bond strength of metal brackets. Furthermore, cleaning and conditioning procedures of the enamel, adhesive systems, polymerization type, and time and moisture contamination of conditioned enamel can modify the retention of metal brackets.4,5 Therefore, the authors recommend a retention of metal brackets greater than 68 MPa.6,7 Many studies have been performed to compare bond strength of metal brackets with different retentive bases.4,6,811 The aims of this study were to (1) compare the shear bond strength of different generations of retentive bases, mesh foil, a new type of wafe base, and laser-structured base and (2) evaluate the inuence of the base extension on the bond strength. Furthermore, the specimens were evaluated with the adhesive remnant index (ARI) index to localize the sites of adhesive fracture. Before testing, the base surAngle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006

852
Table 1. Descriptive Statistic of Shear Bond Strength (N) and Nominal Area (mm2)

COZZA, MARTUCCI, DE TOFFOL, PENCO

95% CI for Mean Bracket Victory Series Mini Dyna-Lock Mini Sprint Topic Equilibrium 2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Area (mm2) 8.97 9.25 5.9 12 10.4 Mean (N) 273.40 145.20 200.60 215.10 302.30 SD 71.67 52.46 30.57 80.80 90.14 SE 22.66 16.59 9.67 25.55 28.50 Lower Bound 222.13 107.67 178.73 157.30 237.82 Upper Bound 324.67 182.73 222.47 272.90 366.78 Minimum 184 87 143 34 144 Maximum 391 248 236 300 417

faces were observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 20. MATERIALS AND METHODS Five types of maxillary incisor metal brackets were selected for this study: Victory Series (S1) and Mini Dyna-Lock (S2) (3M Unitek, Monrovia, Calif), Mini Sprint (S3) (Forestadent, Pforzheim, Germany), and Topic (S4) and equilibrium 2 (S5) (Dentaurum, Inspringen, Germany). Ten brackets for each type were used. In the rst part of this study, the base surface of the brackets selected was observed using a SEM (Zeiss DSM 950) at 20. For the morphologic analysis with SEM, the slot surfaces of the bracket were bonded on appropriate stubs leaving the retentive surface exposed. The mean base surface area of the brackets was calculated by measuring length and width and computing the area. A bovine tooth model was used in this study because the enamel of bovine incisor has been shown to be histochemically similar to human enamel.12 Fifty bovine incisors were extracted, washed, and deprived of pulps and of the greater portion of the roots. The criteria of tooth selection were crown grossly perfect with absence of cracks caused by extraction forceps. The teeth were then embedded in self-curing acrylic resin (Ortocryl, Dentaurum), leaving the labial enamel exposed. The specimens were stored in normal saline solution for 1 week until testing. A prophylactic treatment was performed with pumice-powder paste-water containing no uoride, then rinsed with an air-water syringe for 10 seconds, and dried with an air-water syringe. Before bonding, the enamel was etched for 15 seconds with a 35% orthophosphoric acid gel solution, sprayed for 20 seconds, and dried with an air-water syringe. The primer (Transbond XT Primer, 3M Unitek) was applied on the enamel and sprayed with air to promote the complete penetration of the resin. After photopolymerization for 10 seconds, brackets with a small layer of adhesive (Transbond XT, 3M Unitek) were positioned and pressed on the labial surfaces of the teeth. The excess of adhesive extruding from the periphery of the base was removed, and the adhesive was cured at 380
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006

mW/cm2 (Curing Light XL 3000, 3M Unitek) applying the light from both interproximal sides for 10 seconds each. The intensity of the lamp has been measured with a radiometer (Optilux Radiometer Model 1000, SDS Kerr, Danbury, Conn), and the error reported by the producer was 5%. The specimens were tested on an Instron universal testing machine (Instron Corp, Canton, Mass): a blade was placed at the bracket base-enamel interface at the occlusal side using a crosshead speed of 6 mm/min and a 50-kg load cell; in this way the brackets were shear tested to failure. The force producing failure was recorded in newtons and converted into megapascals by dividing the measured force values by the mean surface area of the brackets. The ARI was used to evaluate the amount of adhesive left on the enamel surface after debonding and to establish the sites of adhesive fracture. Brackets were observed with a stereomicroscope at 10 magnication, and the remaining adhesive was scored with respect to the amount of resin material remaining on the enamel: ARI 0, less than 10% of the adhesive remained on the enamel; ARI 1, more than 10% but less than 50% of the adhesive remained on the enamel; ARI 2, more than 50% but less than 90% of the adhesive remained on the enamel; ARI 3, more than 90% of the adhesive remained on the enamel with a clear impression of the bracket base on the adhesiveenamel surface.13 Statistical method Descriptive statistics included mean and standard deviation (SD) for each group, in megapascals and in newtons. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukeys HSD post hoc tests were carried out to analyze the effect of bracket base design on mean shear bond strength. RESULTS The overall mean bond strengths are shown in Table 1. The one-way ANOVA test showed that there were statistically signicant differences among the ve groups with respect to shear bond strength (P .001).

BRACKET ADHESION Table 2. Statistical Comparison (Tukeys HSD Post hoc Test)a Newtons Bracket Base Comparison Victory Series S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S1 S3 S4 S5 S1 S2 S4 S5 S1 S2 S3 S5 S1 S2 S3 S4 Mini Dyna-Lock Mini Sprint Topic Equilibrium 2 Victory Series Mini Sprint Topic Equilibrium 2 Victory Series Mini Dyna-Lock Topic Equilibrium 2 Victory Series Mini Dyna-Lock Mini Sprint Equilibrium 2 Victory Series Mini Dyna-Lock Mini Sprint Topic Mean Difference 128.20 72.80 58.30 28.90 128.20 55.40 69.90 157.10 72.80 55.40 14.50 101.70 58.30 69.90 14.50 87.20 28.90 157.10 101.70 87.20 P .001*** .141 .331 .878 .001*** .382 .170 .000*** .141 .382 .989 .015* .331 .170 .989 .050* .878 .000*** .015** .050* Megapascals Mean Difference 14.78 2.52 12.55 1.41 14.78 17.30 2.23 13.37 2.52 17.30 15.08 3.93 12.55 2.23 15.08 11.14 1.41 13.37 3.93 11.14 P .000*** .931 .002** .992 .000*** .000*** .955 .001*** .931 .000*** .000*** .730 .002** .955 .000*** .009** .992 .001*** .730 .009**

853

Mini Dyna-Lock

S2

Mini Sprint

S3

Topic

S4

Equilibrium 2

S5

The mean difference is signicant at *P .05; **P .01; ***P .001 levels.

Table 3. Descriptive Statistic of Shear Bond Strength (MPa) and Nominal Area (mm2) 95% CI for Mean Bracket Victory Series Mini Dyna-Lock Mini Sprint Topic Equilibrium 2 S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 Area (mm2) Mean (MPa) 8.97 9.25 5.9 12 10.4 30.48 15.70 33.00 17.92 29.07 SD 7.99 5.67 6.00 6.73 8.67 SE 2.53 1.79 1.90 2.13 2.74 Lower Bound 24.76 11.64 28.71 13.11 22.86 Upper Bound 36.19 19.75 37.29 22.74 35.27 Minimum 21 9 24 3 14 Maximum 44 27 40 25 40

Table 4. ARI Scores in Percentagea Value ARI 0 ARI 1 ARI 2 ARI 3

a

Criterion No adhesive left on the tooth (10%) Less than half of the adhesive left on the tooth More than half of the adhesive left on the tooth All adhesive left on the tooth (90%), with distinct impression of the bracket base

Interpretation Adhesive fracture at cement-enamel interface Mixed fracture Adhesive fracture at bracket-cement interface

S1 50 30 20

S2 10 10 30 50

S3 50 50

S4 10 10 40 40

S5 20 20 20 20

ARI indicates adhesive remnant index.

Application of Tukeys HSD post hoc test showed that S5 and S1 presented signicantly greater shear bond strength in comparison with the other samples (Table 2). The mean bonding force per area squared is shown in Table 3. The Tukeys HSD post hoc test demonstrated signicant differences between the brackets evaluated (Table 2): S1, S3, and S5 showed a significantly greater bonding force when the data were expressed in megapascals.

The location of the fracture for each test sample was evaluated with the ARI index (Table 4). Three possible types of fractures were observed: cohesive fracture, within the body of the cement; adhesive fracture, at the cement-bracket base or enamel-cement interface, and mixed fracture.8 For all the brackets, 4050% of breakage was a mixed fracture. S1 and S3 showed 50% of fractures at the cementenamel interface, and S2 showed 50% of breakage at the bracket-cement interface. Regarding S4, 40% of the fractures occurred
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006

854

COZZA, MARTUCCI, DE TOFFOL, PENCO

FIGURE 1. Victory Series: photomicrograph at 20.

FIGURE 3. Mini Sprint: photomicrograph at 20.

FIGURE 2. Mini Dyna-Lock: photomicrograph at 20.

FIGURE 4. Topic: photomicrograph at 20.

at bracket-cement interface. S5 showed greater variability of fracture sites, and in 20% of the specimens the fracture occurred within the enamel. DISCUSSION With the exception of S1, all brackets used in this study were integral brackets, in which the body and the retentive base are a unique piece. S1 presents with an 80-G mesh foil, which seems to be the most retentive size, providing large spaces for the penetration of the adhesive and the curing light.9,14,15 However, some authors consider that the mesh size does not inuence the retention signicantly or that it depends on the ller content of the adhesive used5,16 (Figure 1). In S2, the retentive system, the retention groove base, is characterized by horizontal undercut channels open at the medial and distal extremities, with a V grooved pattern running vertically on the surface of the
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006

base. In theory, such a design should reduce the chances of air entrapment because excess material can escape. The retention of this kind of base does not seem to be completely satisfying10 (Figure 2). S3 presents the smallest base surface among those selected in this study (5.9 mm2). Retention is provided by a wafe base, consisting of metallic indentations coming out from the bottom of the bracket. Scanning electron micrograph shows that each indentation seems to be tipped occlusogingivally, creating adequate undercuts. The free volume among the indentations allows the escape of air and excess resin (Figure 3). S4 is characterized by a laser-structured base in which the retention is obtained with many hole-shaped cavities on the bottom of the brackets that are realized by a laser beam scanned over the base surface. Photomicrograph shows the presence of projecting metallic margins, probably derived from the laser beam action (Figure 4).

BRACKET ADHESION

855 (both in N and in MPa) with respect to the similar S5. This phenomenon is probably due to the greater base extension, to the consequent decreased adaptability of S4, and to the smaller number of laser shots per area for S4 than for S5. Moreover, S4 presents a particular anatomic design, probably incompatible with the bovine incisor prole. Finally, the ARI index analysis showed a considerable variability in the fracture sites. In S1 and S3, 50% of bond failures were located at the enamel-adhesive interface (ARI 0) and 50% were mixed fractures (ARI 1). No ARI 2 and ARI 3 cases were present for S3 and no ARI 3 cases were present for S1. This seems to be a conrmation of the high retention of these bracket bases. In S2 and S4, most of the bond failures were located at the bracket-adhesive interface (50% and 40%, respectively), with variable percent values in the other ARI scores. This nding is comparable to those found at the Instron machine test, expressing the lower retention capacity or their lower adaptability. S4 showed an equal distribution in all the ARI index scores and two cases of crown fracture. In general, ARI results should be interpreted with caution because they are subjective.17 CONCLUSIONS All brackets tested provided acceptable bond force levels. Victory Series and equilibrium 2 brackets showed the highest shear bond strength when values are expressed in newtons. When values are expressed in megapascals, the foil mesh base of Victory Series, the wafe base of Mini Sprint, and the laser-structured base of equilibrium 2 brackets demonstrated a similar and signicantly greater bonding force compared with the others specimens. The enlargement of the surface area of the bracket can increase the load carrying capacity, but it causes an adaptability drop. The results of this study showed that probably the retentive base extension can be lower than the 7 mm2 proposed as the minimal area in previous studies.11 The ARI index values showed considerable variability. REFERENCES
1. Buonocore MG. A simple method of increasing the adhesion of acrylic lling materials to enamel surfaces. J Dent Res. 1955;34:849853. 2. Newmann GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: progress report. Am J Orthod. 1965;51:901912. 3. Mitchell DL. Bandless orthodontic bracket. J Am Dent Assoc. 1967;74:103110.
Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006

FIGURE 5. Equilibrium 2: photomicrograph at 20.

The perfectly quadrangular base shape is the main characteristic distinguishing these brackets from S5, which presents a smaller and more concave and anatomic base shape (Figure 5). The analysis of the shear bond strength indicates that all the retentive systems used in the brackets tested provide the clinically acceptable bond force levels (68 MPa) suggested by Reynolds and von Fraunhofer.7 However, this is an in vitro study and care should be taken in extrapolating the results to those that might be obtained in the oral environment, in which moisture contamination dramatically reduces adhesion.6 In fact, the aim of this study was to determine the retention capacity, without considering in vivo real conditions. To compare the retention capacity of brackets selected, it is necessary to express the shear bond strength (in N) and the bonding force (in MPa). The values in newtons describe the shear bond strength considering the retentive base surface, whereas the values in megapascals, obtained by dividing the values in newtons for the base areas, exclude the inuence of the millimetric extension of the base and reect strictly the effectiveness of the retention mechanism. S5 showed the highest shear bond strength. This value is not signicantly greater than S1, but it is signicantly greater than the values shown by the other specimens. When the values are expressed in megapascals, S3, S1, and S5 demonstrate a similar and signicantly greater bonding force with respect to the others. Comparing the results with the extension in square millimeters of the base surfaces, it is evident that the latter factor can inuence the shear bond strength: increasing the surface area of the bracket, the load carrying capacity increases, as observed in previous studies.5,9 Interestingly, S4 showed signicantly lower values

856
4. Wang WN, Li CH, Chou TH, Wang DDH, Lin LH, Lin CT. Bond strength of various bracket base designs. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2004;125:6570. 5. Bishara SE, Oonsombat C, Ajlouni R, Denehy G. The effect of saliva contamination on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets when using a self-etch primer. Angle Orthod. 2002;72:554557. 6. Lopez JI. Retentive shear strengths of various bonding attachment bases. Am J Orthod. 1980;77:669678. 7. Reynolds IR, von Fraunhofer JA. Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: the relation of adhesive bond strength to gauge mesh size. Br J Orthod. 1976;3:9195. 8. Fernandez L, Canut JA. In vitro comparison of the retention capacity of new aesthetic brackets. Eur J Orthod. 1999;21: 7177. 9. Maijer R, Smith DC. Variables inuencing the bond strength of metal orthodontic bracket bases. Am J Orthodontics. 1981;79:2034. 10. Willems G, Carels CEL, Verbeke G. In vitro peel/shear bond strength evaluation of orthodontic bracket base design. J Dent. 1997;25:271278. 11. MacColl GA, Rossouw PE, Titley KC, Yamin C. The relationship between bond strength and orthodontic bracket

COZZA, MARTUCCI, DE TOFFOL, PENCO

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

base surface area with conventional and microetched foilmesh bases. Am. J. Orthod. Dentofacial Orthop. 1998;113: 276281. Nakamichi I, Iwaken M, Fusayama T. Bovine teeth as possible substitutes in the adhesion test. J Dent Res. 1983;62: 10761081. Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthod. 1984;85:333340. Buzzita VAJ, Hallgren SE, Powers JM. Bond strength of orthodontic direct-bonding cement-bracket systems as studied in vitro. Am J Orthod. 1982;81:8792. Sharma-Sayal SK, Rossouw PE, Kulkami GV, Titley KC. The inuence of orthodontic bracket base design on shear bond strength. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;124: 7482. James JW, Miller BH, English JD, Tadlock LP, Buschang PH. Effects of high-speed curing devices on shear bond strength and microleakage of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2003;123:555561. Lalani N, Foley TF, Voth R, Banting D, Marnandras A. Polymerization with the argon laser: curing time and shear bond strength. Angle Orthod. 2000;70:128133.

Angle Orthodontist, Vol 76, No 5, 2006