The Microhardness and Chemical Composition of Different Ceramic Self-Ligating Brackets: An In Vitro Study
Mallaury Martinez, Paul Fawaz, Patrick El Sayegh, Christophe Rapin, Bart Vande Vannet
TL;DR
This study compares the hardness and composition of ceramic orthodontic brackets and finds that some may damage tooth enamel.
Contribution
The study introduces a comparative analysis of microhardness and chemical composition of various self-ligating ceramic orthodontic brackets.
Findings
Ceramic brackets had hardness values six times greater than enamel, raising concerns about enamel trauma.
Passive self-ligating brackets were significantly harder than active ones.
Alpine® brackets had the lowest hardness, suggesting lower enamel damage risk.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the hardness, chemical composition, and microstructure of various self-ligating ceramic orthodontic brackets and enamel. Methods: Sixty ceramic brackets (0.022″ × 0.028″) from six different orthodontic firms (Damon® Clear 2, Genius® Crystal, Empower® 2 Clear, Clarity® Ultra, Alpine SL® Clear, and Experience Ceramic®) were tested using a microhardness tester and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipped with energy-dispersive spectroscopy (EDS). Results: The hardness of the ceramic brackets ranged from 1969.8 to 2567.3 VH. The statistical analysis using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney tests revealed significant differences in microhardness between most of the ceramic brackets. Additionally, this study found that passive self-ligating brackets exhibited a significantly higher hardness than that of active self-ligating brackets (p =…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsBone Tissue Engineering Materials · Advanced materials and composites · Dental materials and restorations