Comparing Torque Transmission of Different Bracket Systems in Combination with Various Archwires Considering Play in the Bracket Slot: An In Vitro Study.

This study aims to examine the play between various archwires and bracket systems, exploring potential variations in angle values for specific torque and torque values for a given angle along different bracket systems. Therefore, seven brackets systems were evaluated in conjunction with different stainless steel archwires of varying dimensions (0.016″ × 0.022″, 0.018″ × 0.025″, and 0.019″ × 0.025″). Biomechanical behavior during torque development and transmission was assessed using a six-component force/torque sensor. Torque angles (5-45°) were specified with subsequent torque measurement, and the sequence was reversed by setting the torque (5-30 Nmm) and measuring the angle. A reference measurement with 0 Nmm torque served to evaluate bracket slot play. Bracket play (0 Nmm) during palatal load ranged between 20.06° and 32.50° for 0.016″ × 0.022″ wire, 12.83° and 21.11° for 0.018″ × 0.025″ wire, and 8.39° and 18.73° for 0.019″ × 0.025″ wire. The BioQuick® bracket exhibited the highest play, while Wave SL® and Damon® Q brackets demonstrated the lowest play (p < 0.001). Significant differences (p < 0.001) between the brackets were observed in the torque angles required to achieve torques of 5-20 Nmm. In summary, each bracket system has a different torque transmission, which is of great clinical importance in order to achieve correct torque transmission and avoid complications such as root resorption.

Adhesion of Resin-Resin and Resin-Lithium Disilicate Ceramic: A Methodological Assessment.

The aim of this study was to evaluate four test methods on the adhesion of resin composite to resin composite, and resin composite to glass ceramic. Resin composite specimens (N = 180, Quadrant Universal LC) were obtained and distributed randomly to test the adhesion of resin composite material and to ceramic materials (IPS e.max CAD) using one of the four following tests: (a) Macroshear SBT: (n = 30), (b) macrotensile TBT: (n = 30), (c) microshear µSBT: (n = 30) and (d) microtensile µTBT test (n = 6, composite-composite:216 sticks, ceramic-composite:216 sticks). Bonded specimens were stored for 24 h at 23 °C. Bond strength values were measured using a universal testing machine (1 mm/min), and failure types were analysed after debonding. Data were analysed using Univariate and Tukey's, Bonneferroni post hoc test (α = 0.05). Two-parameter Weibull modulus, scale (m), and shape (0) were calculated. Test method and substrate type significantly affected the bond strength results, as well as their interaction term (p < 0.05). Resin composite to resin composite adhesion using SBT (24.4 ± 5)a, TBT (16.1 ± 4.4)b and µSBT (20.6 ± 7.4)a,b test methods presented significantly lower mean bond values (MPa), compared to µTBT (36.7 ± 8.9)b (p < 0.05). When testing adhesion of glass ceramics to resin composite, µSBT (6.6 ± 1)B showed the lowest and µTBT (24.8 ± 7)C,D the highest test values (MPa) (SBT (14.6 ± 5)A,D and TBT (19.9 ± 5)A,B) (p < 0.05). Resin composite adhesion to ceramic vs. resin composite did show significant difference for the test methods SBT and µTBT (resin composite (24.4 ± 5; 36.7 ± 9 MPa) vs. glass ceramic (14.6 ± 5; 25 ± 7 MPa)) (p > 0.05). Among substrate-test combinations, Weibull distribution presented the highest shape values for ceramic-resin in µSBT (7.6) and resin-resin in µSBT (5.7). Cohesive failures in resin-resin bond were most frequently observed in SBT (87%), followed by TBT (50%) and µSBT (50%), while mixed failures occurred mostly in ceramic-resin bonds in the SBT (100%), TBT (90%), and µSBT (90%) test types. According to Weibull modulus, failure types, and bond strength, µTBT tests might be more reliable for testing resin-based composites adhesion to resin, while µSBT might be more suitable for adhesion testing of resin-based composites to ceramic materials.