The influence of dynamic fatigue loading on the separate components of the bracket-cement-enamel system

American Journal of Dentistry

Volumn 21, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 239-243

  Algera, Tjalling J ^a   Kleverlaan, Cornelis J ^a,b   Prahl Andersen, Birte ^a   Feilzer, Albert J ^b  

^a Department of Dental Material Science ^*

^b UNIVERSITY OF AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACRYLIC ACID RESIN; ALUMINUM SILICATE; FUJI IX GP FAST; FUJI ORTHO LC; GLASS IONOMER; RESIN CEMENT; STAINLESS STEEL; TOOTH CEMENT; TRANSBOND XT; WATER;

ALGORITHM; ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DENTAL BONDING; ENAMEL; MATERIALS TESTING; MECHANICAL STRESS; ORTHODONTIC DEVICE; SHEAR STRENGTH; TEMPERATURE; TIME; ULTRASTRUCTURE;

ACRYLIC RESINS; ALGORITHMS; ALUMINUM SILICATES; ANIMALS; CATTLE; DENTAL BONDING; DENTAL CEMENTS; DENTAL ENAMEL; GLASS IONOMER CEMENTS; MATERIALS TESTING; ORTHODONTIC BRACKETS; RESIN CEMENTS; SHEAR STRENGTH; STAINLESS STEEL; STRESS, MECHANICAL; TEMPERATURE; TIME FACTORS; WATER;

EID: 52049126192     PISSN: 08948275     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Wilson AD, McLean JW. Glass-ionomer cement. 3rd ed. St Louís: Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc., 1988.
2. Miguel JA, Almeida MA, Chevitarese O. Clinical comparison between a glass ionomer cement and a composite for direct bonding of orthodontic brackets. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1995;107:484-487.
3. Relief DH. Failure at the dental adhesive-etched enamel interface. J Oral Rehabil 1974;1:265-284.
4. Pickett KL, Sadowsky PL, Jacobson A, Lacefield W. Orthodontic in vivo bond strength: Comparison with in vitro results. Angle Orthod 2001;71:141-148.
5. Reynolds IR. A review of direct orthodontic bonding. Br J Orthod 1975; 2:171-178.
6. Newman GV. Epoxy adhesives for orthodontic attachments: Progress report. Am J Orthod 1965;51:901-912.
7. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of environmental conditions on the material properties of setting glassionomer cements. Dent Mater 2006;22:852-856.
8. Miura F, Nakagawa K, Masuhara E. New direct bonding system for plastic brackets. Am J Orthod 1971;59:350-361.
9. Söderholm KJ, Roberts MJ. Influence of water exposure on the tensile strength of composites. J Dent Res 1990;69:1812-1816.
10. Baran G, Boberick K, McCool J. Fatigue of restorative materials. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med 2001;12:350-360.
11. Soderquist SA, Drammond JL, Evans CA. Bond strength evaluation of ceramic and stainless steel bracket bases subjected to cyclic tensile loading. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2006;129:175 e7-175 e12.
12. Erickson RL, De Gee AJ, Feilzer AJ. Fatigue testing of enamel bonds with self-etch and total-etch adhesive systems. Dent Mater 2006;22:981-987.
13. McCabe JF, Wang Y, Braem M. Surface contact fatigue and flexural fatigue of dental restorative materials. J Biomed Mater Res 2000;50:375-380.
14. Draughn RA. Compressive fatigue limits of composite restorative materials. J Dent Res 1979;58:1093-1096.
15. Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Krämer N, Petschelt A. Time-dependent strength and fatigue resistance of dental direct restorative materials. J Mater Sci Mater Med 2003;14:1047-1053.
16. Bishara SE, Vonwald L, Laffoon JF, Jakobsen JR. Effect of altering the type of enamel conditioner on the shear bond strength of a resin-reinforced glass ionomer adhesive. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 2000;118:288-294.
17. Jobalia SB, Valente RM, de Rijk WG, BeGole EA, Evans CA. Bond strength of visible light-cured glass ionomer orthodontic cement. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1997;112:205-208.
18. Meehan MP, Foley TF, Mamandras AH. A comparison of the shear bond strengths of two glass ionomer cements. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop 1999;115:125-132.
19. Owens SE, Jr., Miller BH. A comparison of shear bond strengths of three visible light-cured orthodontic adhesives. Angle Orthod 2000;70:352-356.
20. Klocke A, Kahl-Nieke B. Influence of force location in orthodontic shear bond strength testing. Dent Mater 2005;21:391-396.
21. Titley KC, Mahal RD, Rossouw PE, Kulkarni GV. Shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets cemented to bovine enamel with composite and resin-modified glass ionomer cements. Pediatr Dent 2003;25:263-269.
22. Millett DT, Cummings A, Letters S, Roger E, Love J. Resin-modified glass ionomer, modified composite or conventional glass ionomer for band cementation? An in vitro evaluation. Eur J Orthod 2003;25:609-614.
23. Algera TJ, Kleverlaan CJ, de Gee AJ, Prahl-Andersen B, Feilzer AJ. The influence of accelerating the setting rate by ultrasound or heat on the bond strength of glass ionomers used as orthodontic bracket cements. Eur J Orthod 2005;27:472-476.
24. Lohbauer U, Frankenberger R, Kramer N, Petschelt A. Strength and fatigue performance versus filler fraction of different types of direct dental restoratives. J Biomed Mater Res B Appl Biomater 2006;76:114-120.
25. McCabe JF, Carrick TE, Chadwick RG, Walls AW. Alternative approaches to evaluating the fatigue characteristics of materials. Dent Mater 1990;6:24-28.