Light energy transmission through six different makes of ceramic orthodontic brackets.

OBJECTIVE

To measure Total Light Energy (TLE) Transmission through six makes of ceramic orthodontic brackets alone and bracket-plus-adhesive samples, using the MARC™-Resin Calibrator (RC).

METHODS

Six makes, three each monocrystalline (M) and polycrystalline (P) were used; PureSapphire (M), SPA Aesthetic (M), Ghost (M), Mist (P), Reflections (P), and Dual Ceramic (P). The Ortholux™ Light Curing Unit (LCU) was used to cure the orthodontic adhesive Transbond™XT. The LCU's tip irradiance was measured and TLE transmitted through the ceramic bracket was obtained, then adhesive added to the bracket, and transmitted TLE measured through bracket-plus-adhesive samples. The LCU was set at five seconds as recommended for curing adhesive through ceramic brackets.

RESULTS

Mean tip irradiance was 1859.2±16.2mW/cm. The TLE transmitted through brackets alone ranged 1.7 to 3.9J/cm, in the descending order: Ghost>Pure Sapphire>Reflections>Mist>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. The TLE transmitted through bracket-plus-adhesive samples ranged 1.6 to 3.7J/cm, in the descending order: Ghost>Mist>Reflections>Pure Sapphire>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. TLE was reduced with the addition of adhesive (range -0.1 to -0.7J/cm). There was a significant difference for Pure Sapphire, Reflections, and Mist (P<0.05), but not for SPA Aesthetics, Ghost, and Dual Ceramic. There was no overall significant difference between the monocrystalline and polycrystalline makes. The two best makes were of the monocrystalline type, concerning TLE transmission, but with the exception of polycrystalline Dual Ceramic; the next worst make was a monocrystalline bracket, SPA Aesthetics.

CONCLUSION

Light energy attenuation through ceramic orthodontic brackets is make-dependent, with no overall difference between monocrystalline and polycrystalline brackets. Light energy is further attenuated with the addition of resin-based orthodontic adhesive.