Download PDF
Informationen aus Orthodontie & Kieferorthopädie 2020; 52(01): 13-16
DOI: 10.1055/a-0966-5791
Originalarbeit
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Einflussfaktoren auf die Haftfestigkeiten neuer und unterschiedlich recycelter Brackets

Factors Influencing the Adhesion of New and Differently Recycled Brackets
Brigitte Wendl
1   Klinische Abteilung für Orale Chirurgie und Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinik für Zahnmedizin und Mundgesundheit, Graz, Österreich
,
Peter Muchitsch
1   Klinische Abteilung für Orale Chirurgie und Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinik für Zahnmedizin und Mundgesundheit, Graz, Österreich
,
Norbert Jakse
1   Klinische Abteilung für Orale Chirurgie und Kieferorthopädie, Universitätsklinik für Zahnmedizin und Mundgesundheit, Graz, Österreich
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 March 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Ziel der Arbeit war die Messung der Haftfestigkeiten neuer und unterschiedlich recycelter Brackets unter Verwendung verschiedener Kleber auf intakter Schmelzoberfläche und bei Wiederholungsklebung sowie die elektronenmikroskopische Beurteilung der Bracketbasen.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to measure the adhesion of new and differently recycled brackets using different adhesives on an intact and rebonded enamel surface and the electron microscopic assessment of the bracket bases.

Schlüsselwörter

Haftfestigkeit - Bracketrecycling

Key words

Adhesion - Bracket recycling
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 O`Brien KD, Read MJF, Sandison RJ. et al. A visible light-activated direct-bonding material: an in vivo comparative study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 95: 348-351
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Mizrahi E. Success and failure of banding and bonding: a clinical study. Angle Orthod 1982; 52: 113-117
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Read MJF, O’Brien KD. A clinical trial of an indirect bonding technique with a visible light-cured adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98: 259-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kinch AP, Taylor H, Warltier R. et al. A clinical trial comparing the failure rates of directly bonded brackets using etch times of 15 or 60 seconds. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 476-483
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Legler LR, Reteif DH, Bradley EL. Effects of phosphoric acid concentration and etch duration on enamel depth of etch: An in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1990; 98: 154-160
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Oliver RG. A new instrument for debonding clean-up. J Clin Orthod 1991; 25: 407-410
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 O’Brien KD, Watts DC, Read MJF. Residual debris and bond strength – is there a relationship?. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1988; 94: 222-230
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Surmont P, Dermaut L, Martens L. et al. Comparisons in shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets between five bonding systems related to different etching times: an in vitro study. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1992; 101: 414-419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Faust JB, Grego GN, Fan PL. et al. Penetration coefficient and bond strength of thirteen direct bonding cements. Am J Orthod 1978; 73: 512-525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Matasa CG. Pros and cons of the reuse of direct bonded appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1989; 96: 72-76
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Shiau JY, Rasmussen ST, Phelps AE. et al. An analysis of the “shear” bond strength of pretreated aged composites used in some indirect bonding techniques. Journal of Dental Research 1993; 72: 1291-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Boyer DB, Chan KC, Reinhardt JW. Build-up and repair of light-cured composites: bond strength. Journal Dental Research 1984; 63: 1241-1244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Saunders WP. Effect of fatigue upon the interfacial bond strength of repaired composit resins. Journal of Dentistry 1990; 18: 158-162
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Vankerckhoven H, Lambrechts P, Van Beylen M. et al. Unreacted methacrylate groups on the surfaces of composite resins. Journal of Dental Research 1982; 61: 791-795
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Puckett AD, Holder R, O’Hara JW. Strength of posterior composite repairs using different composite/bonding agent combinations. Operative Dentistry 1991; 16: 136-140
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Gregory WA, Pounder B, Bakus E. Bond strengths of chemically dissimilar repaired composite resins. Journal Prosthetic Dentistry 1990; 64: 664-668
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Lastumäki TM, Kallio TT, Vallittu PK. The bond strength of ligth-curing composite resin to finally polymerized and aged glass fiber-reinforced composite substrate. Biomaterials 2002; 23: 4533-4539
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Klocke A, Shi J, Vaziri F. et al. Effect of Time on Bond Strength in Indirect Bonding. Angle Orthod 2004; 74-2: 245-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Evans LB, Powers JM. Factors affecting in vitro bond strength of no-mix orthodontic cements. Am J Orthod 1985; 87: 508-512
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Retief DH, Denys FR. Finishing of enamel surfaces after debonding orthodontic attachments. Angle Orthod 1979; 49: 1-10
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Walmsley AD, Jones PA, Hullah W. Ultrasonic debonding of composite-retained restorations. British Dental Journal 1989; 166: 290-294
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Zachrisson BU, Artun J. Enamel surface appearance after various debonding techniques. Am J Orthod 1979; 75: 121-137
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975; 2: 171-178
    PubMedGoogle Scholar