Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials
- PMID: 16045979
- DOI: 10.1016/j.dental.2005.03.007
Comparative assessment of the roughness, hardness, and wear resistance of aesthetic bracket materials
Abstract
Objective: The purpose of this study was to assess critical properties of orthodontic aesthetic bracket materials.
Method: Samples of polycarbonate, poly(oxy)methylene, ultra high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE), and polycrystalline alumina raw material used from bracket manufacturing were subjected to: (a) profilometry for the determination of Ra, Rq, Rmax and Rz roughness parameters; (b) Vickers hardness (HV50) testing; and (c) wear resistance determined by the scratch test. The results were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Tukey multiple comparisons test at alpha=0.05 level of significance.
Results: The UHMWP and alumina specimens showed the highest roughness values for all parameters. The highest hardness, amongst the polymeric raw materials, was obtained from the poly(oxy)methylene appliances. Differences were also noted between the polycarbonate raw material of different manufacturers implying an effect from the manufacturing process. With the exception of alumina, the highest wear resistance was found for the poly(oxy)methylene specimens.
Significance: The results of this study reveal the variability among aesthetic plastic bracket raw materials, their reduced hardness and wear resistance relative to alumina as well as the inappropriateness of UHMWPE as alternative bracket material.
Similar articles
-
Evaluation of alternative polymer bracket materials.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010 Mar;137(3):362-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2008.12.020. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2010. PMID: 20197173
-
Hardness and wear resistance of two resin composites cured with equivalent radiant exposure from a low irradiance LED and QTH light-curing units.Am J Dent. 2006 Feb;19(1):31-6. Am J Dent. 2006. PMID: 16555655
-
Bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans to esthetic bracket materials.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008 Apr;133(4 Suppl):S99-103. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2007.03.024. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008. PMID: 18407028
-
How to qualify and validate wear simulation devices and methods.Dent Mater. 2006 Aug;22(8):712-34. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2006.02.002. Epub 2006 Mar 30. Dent Mater. 2006. PMID: 16574212 Review.
-
Orthodontic materials research and applications: part 2. Current status and projected future developments in materials and biocompatibility.Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007 Feb;131(2):253-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ajodo.2005.12.029. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2007. PMID: 17276868 Review.
Cited by
-
Study of force loss due to friction comparing two ceramic brackets during sliding tooth movement.J Orofac Orthop. 2016 Sep;77(5):334-40. doi: 10.1007/s00056-016-0038-0. Epub 2016 Jul 6. J Orofac Orthop. 2016. PMID: 27384715 English.
-
Surface roughness of three types of modern plastic bracket slot floors and frictional resistance.Angle Orthod. 2014 Jan;84(1):177-83. doi: 10.2319/030313-179.1. Epub 2013 Jun 14. Angle Orthod. 2014. PMID: 23767940 Free PMC article.
-
New aesthetic in-house 3D-printed brackets: proof of concept and fundamental mechanical properties.Prog Orthod. 2022 Feb 21;23(1):6. doi: 10.1186/s40510-022-00400-z. Prog Orthod. 2022. PMID: 35187595 Free PMC article.
-
Direct 3D Printing of Clear Orthodontic Aligners: Current State and Future Possibilities.Materials (Basel). 2021 Apr 5;14(7):1799. doi: 10.3390/ma14071799. Materials (Basel). 2021. PMID: 33916462 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Comparative assessment of clinical performance of esthetic bracket materials.Angle Orthod. 2012 Jul;82(4):691-7. doi: 10.2319/092511-605.1. Epub 2012 Jan 9. Angle Orthod. 2012. PMID: 22229823 Free PMC article.
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources