ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Dent. Med.
Sec. Dental Materials
In Vitro Assessment of Toothbrushing Effects on Orthodontic Bracket Debonding: Comparing Stainless Steel and Ceramic Brackets with Two Adhesive Systems
Provisionally accepted
Mehmood Asghar1*
Mahrukh Javed2Zainab Qasim Butt1Saood Khan Lodhi3Shahzad Ahmad4
Muhammad Amber Fareed5*
Muhammad Kaleem1- 1National University of Medical Sciences (NUMS), Rawalpindi, Pakistan
- 2National University of Medical Sciences, Rawalpindi, Pakistan
- 3FMH College of Medicine and Dentistry, Lahore, Pakistan
- 4The University of Buckingham Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences and Allied Health, Crewe, United Kingdom
- 5Ajman University, Ajman, United Arab Emirates
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
Background: This study aimed to compare the bracket failure of metal and ceramic orthodontic brackets bonded with two different adhesives using the conventional shear bond test and a custom-made toothbrush simulator. Methods: Forty-eight bovine teeth were extracted, bracketed, pH-cycled (14 days), randomly divided into four groups: metallic brackets bonded with B&E bonding agent (MB) and OrthoVita (MO), and ceramic brackets bonded with the B&E (CB) and the OrthoVita (CO). The bracket failure was evaluated using were evaluated with a universal testing machine (UTM) and a custom-made toothbrush simulator (TBS) (n=6). Similarly, the amount of adhesive remaining on the bracket following debonding was evaluated using the Adhesive Remnant Index (ARI). Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22 was used for statistical analysis. A two-way ANOVA was used for shear bond testing, while Fishers Exact test was used for the comparison of toothbrush simulator results. Results: The mean values of shear bond strengths (± SE) were MB 58.32 ± 4.48 MPa, MO 22.57 ± 5.64 MPa, CB 27.36 ± 2.66 MPa, and lastly, CO 12.54 ± 3.64 MPa (p < 0.001). In the case of toothbrush simulation, all the samples remained intact in the group MB following 75,000 cycles. In group MO: two samples debonded < 10,000 cycles, four remained intact. In CB, three samples debonded < 10,000 cycles, one debonded < 20,000-30,000 cycles, and only two samples This is a provisional file, not the final typeset article remained intact. In the CO group four samples debonded < 10,000 cycles, while two samples remained intact. Conclusion: Metallic brackets and B&E Universal adhesive showed superior results. MB proved to have the strongest bonding comparatively.
Keywords: Bonding agent, Debonding, Orthodontic Adhesives, Orthodontic Brackets, Toothbrushsimulator, shear bond strength
Received: 13 Oct 2025; Accepted: 19 Nov 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Asghar, Javed, Butt, Lodhi, Ahmad, Fareed and Kaleem. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence:
Mehmood Asghar, mehmudbhatti@yahoo.com
Muhammad Amber Fareed, m.fareed@ajman.ac.ae
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.