IADR Abstract Archives
Bonding Customized Gold Orthodontic Appliances using a New Bonding Tray
Objectives: Clear Precision Tray (CPT, 3M) became available for Incognito™ Appliances (3M) utilizing a digital bracket-positioning method. Digital bracket positioning allowed for the elimination of manual positioning/bonding on a stone model and the custom resin base on brackets. Without the highly-filled custom base, the indirect bonding adhesives (flowable, lower/lightly-filled) must meet the bonding requirements alone to provide sufficient bond strength. The objective is to determine the effects of the custom base, different adhesives and enamel microetching, and evaluate the bonding performance of CPTs.
Methods: Model gold brackets (with or without custom base: Phase II (Reliance)) were bonded to uncut bovine enamel (non-microetched or microetched with 50-micron alumina) using dual-cure adhesive, RelyX™ Unicem 2 Automix (RXU, 3M) and chemical-cure adhesives, Transbond™ IDB (TBIDB, 3M) and Maximum Cure® (MC, Reliance). Bonded teeth were tested for shear-peel bond strength.
Human molar arches were prepared and scanned (GOM) to manufacture customized Incognito Appliances and CPTs. Each arch was bonded with RXU or TBIDB (Fig.1). The tray was removed after cure. Bonded human molars were subjected to 1000 thermocycles (5°C/55°C) and tested for shear-peel bond strength.
Results: Using model brackets, bond strengths (Fig.2) were higher using RXU (with or without custom base, optional microetching tooth) than TBIDB and MC (ANOVA). Bond strengths were comparable between TBIDB (with or without custom base, optional microetching tooth) and MC (with custom base and microetching tooth). No enamel damage occurred on any teeth after debonding. Most adhesive remnants were on teeth, indicating lower risk of enamel damage.
Using customized Incognito brackets (sandblasted only, no custom base), bond strengths (Fig.3) were good and comparable between RXU and TBIDB without microetching tooth. No enamel damage occurred on any teeth.
Conclusions: For CPT bonding, we were able to eliminate the custom resin base on brackets, leave microetching enamel optional, and use dual-cure RXU and lightly-filled chemical-cure TBIDB.
Methods: Model gold brackets (with or without custom base: Phase II (Reliance)) were bonded to uncut bovine enamel (non-microetched or microetched with 50-micron alumina) using dual-cure adhesive, RelyX™ Unicem 2 Automix (RXU, 3M) and chemical-cure adhesives, Transbond™ IDB (TBIDB, 3M) and Maximum Cure® (MC, Reliance). Bonded teeth were tested for shear-peel bond strength.
Human molar arches were prepared and scanned (GOM) to manufacture customized Incognito Appliances and CPTs. Each arch was bonded with RXU or TBIDB (Fig.1). The tray was removed after cure. Bonded human molars were subjected to 1000 thermocycles (5°C/55°C) and tested for shear-peel bond strength.
Results: Using model brackets, bond strengths (Fig.2) were higher using RXU (with or without custom base, optional microetching tooth) than TBIDB and MC (ANOVA). Bond strengths were comparable between TBIDB (with or without custom base, optional microetching tooth) and MC (with custom base and microetching tooth). No enamel damage occurred on any teeth after debonding. Most adhesive remnants were on teeth, indicating lower risk of enamel damage.
Using customized Incognito brackets (sandblasted only, no custom base), bond strengths (Fig.3) were good and comparable between RXU and TBIDB without microetching tooth. No enamel damage occurred on any teeth.
Conclusions: For CPT bonding, we were able to eliminate the custom resin base on brackets, leave microetching enamel optional, and use dual-cure RXU and lightly-filled chemical-cure TBIDB.
2410272_File000004.jpg
2410272_File000005.jpg
2410272_File000006.jpg