A study of the mechanical properties of as-received and intraorally exposed single-crystal and polycrystalline orthodontic ceramic brackets.

BACKGROUND

Although ceramic brackets have been extensively used for decades in orthodontics there is not till today any study focusing on the possible deterioration of mechanical properties after in vivo ageing.

OBJECTIVES

To determine whether the mechanical properties of alumina orthodontic brackets change after intraoral ageing thereby assessing the validity of a theoretical model established for the performance of ceramics in wet environments.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Two alumina brackets, one single crystal (Radiance, American Orthodontics, Sheboygan, WI) and one polycrystalline (Clarity, 3M, St. Paul, MN) were included in this study. Ten brackets for each group were collected from different patients after a minimum of 3-month intraoral exposure, whereas as-received brackets of the same manufacturers were used as controls. The specimens were subjected to Raman spectroscopy and were then embedded in epoxy resin and metallographic ground and polished. The mechanical properties of four groups (radiance control: RAC, radiance-retrieved RAR, clarity control: CLC and clarity-retrieved CLR) were determined using instrumented indentation testing according to ISO 14577-2002. The mechanical properties tested were Martens hardness (HM), indentation modulus (EIT), the ratio of elastic to total work, commonly known as elastic index (ηIT), and fracture toughness (KIC). The numerical results were statistically analysed employing two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey multiple comparison test at a = 0.05.

RESULTS

Raman analysis revealed that both brackets are made of a-Al2O3 (corundum). No statistically significant differences were found for HM (N/mm2): RAC = 7249 (1507), RAR = 6926 (1144), CLC = 8052 (1360), CLR = 7390 (2393), or for EIT (GPa): RAC = 141 (27), RAR = 139 (23), CLC = 139 (28), CLR = 131 (47). However, significant differences were identified between the two alumina brackets tested for ηIT (%): RAC = 55.7 (4.2), RAR = 54.0 (3.5), CLC = 62.5 (4.4), CLR = 61.8 (4.7), while KIC was measured only for the polycrystalline bracket (Clarity) because of the complicated fractured pattern of the single-crystal bracket. Both brackets share equal HM and EIT before and after orthodontic intraoral ageing.

LIMITATIONS

Whereas the study assessed the changes after intraoral exposure per theoretical model, which describes the reduction of critical stress to induce fracture after wetting, long-term intraoral ageing could have induced more pronounced effects.

CONCLUSIONS/IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study indicate that 3 months of intraoral ageing do not change the mechanical properties of single-crystal and polycrystalline orthodontic brackets tested, thus indicating that the Griffith theory may not be applied to the case of manufactured ceramic brackets owing possibly to internal defects.