Link to the University of Pittsburgh Homepage
Link to the University Library System Homepage Link to the Contact Us Form

Fracture resistance of tie wings of ceramic brackets under loading

Kim, Nick (2020) Fracture resistance of tie wings of ceramic brackets under loading. Master's Thesis, University of Pittsburgh. (Unpublished)

Updated Version

Download (514kB) | Preview


To determine if there a significant difference in fracture strength of tie wings of 1. Polycrystalline ceramic brackets, 2. Monocrystalline ceramic brackets, made by different manufactures.

Materials and Methods:
Sample: The mesial incisal tie wing of 9 brands of commonly used polycrystalline and 5 brands of monocrystalline brackets were tested for fracture strength. Each brand’s sample consisted of 15 maxillary right central incisors brackets and 15 maxillary right lateral incisor brackets (.022 slot MBT).
Method: The brackets were bonded onto a ceramic slab. An Instron Universal testing machine was used to apply a vertical force on the mesial incisal wing of each bracket. The force at the point of tie wing fracture was recorded as the fracture strength.

Polycrystalline brackets: Ormco Symmetri (301.03 N ± 36.56), 3M Clarity (203.55 N ± 36.56) and Forestadent Glam (196.06 N ± 68.84) were the strongest, with no significant difference between them. Dentsply Ovation C was the next strongest (175.87 N ± 48.25). Henry Schein NeoLucent Plus (119.74 N ± 21.06), Ortho Tech Ref Ceramic (107.53 N ± 51.07), TP Clear Vu (106.17 N ± 27.43), AO Cosmetic (88.52 ± 50.67) and RMO Signature III (84.99 ± 42.30) were the least strong, with no significant differences between them.
Mono crystalline brackets: AO Radiance Plus (262.42 N ± 110.42), Ormco Inspire ICE (240.48 N ± 78.51) Henry Schein NeoCrystal Plus (221.80 N ± 42.07), Ortho Tech PURE (210.66 N ± 42.07) were the strongest, with no significant differences between them, while Dentsply Ovation S (55.80 N ± 13.04) was the weakest.

There are significant differences in the fracture strength of various brands, both amongst polycrystalline and monocrystalline brackets.


Social Networking:
Share |


Item Type: University of Pittsburgh ETD
Status: Unpublished
CreatorsEmailPitt UsernameORCID
Kim, Nickbsk27@pitt.edubsk27
ETD Committee:
TitleMemberEmail AddressPitt UsernameORCID
Committee ChairKalra,
Committee MemberBurnheimer,
Committee MemberAlmarza,
Committee MemberShah,
Date: 13 July 2020
Date Type: Publication
Defense Date: 29 May 2020
Approval Date: 13 July 2020
Submission Date: 6 June 2020
Access Restriction: No restriction; Release the ETD for access worldwide immediately.
Number of Pages: 53
Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Schools and Programs: School of Dental Medicine > Dental Science
Degree: MDS - Master of Dental Science
Thesis Type: Master's Thesis
Refereed: Yes
Uncontrolled Keywords: Ceramic brackets, Fracture Resistance, Tie wings, Polycrystalline, Monocrystalline
Related URLs:
Date Deposited: 13 Jul 2020 18:01
Last Modified: 13 Jul 2020 18:01


Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item