Evaluation 0ffouTteen

direct-bonding orthodontic
bases
Philip T. Dickinson, D.D.S., M.S.,*
and John M. Powers, Ph.D.**
Ann Arbor, Mich.

Design churuc~teristics (urw of bonding. mesh size, und tyr) und bond \trctr~rh (s/
f&teen rvmmercicll direct-bonding mvttrl buses with commerciull~~ utttcchcvi btc~c&~t.~
wew evaluatrd. Tensile bond strength MIS meusured with tltw direc~t-l~o~r~li~i~
trdhesiws, wing plastic, and nutnrul teeth us substrutes. Stutistic~ull\, .sign~jwunt
d@erenws in bond strength were obserrwl umong the buses. but brand .\treyqth wtls
independent of nominul ureu und mesh .size of the buses, Bond jirilnrr.\ oc,clrrr-et/ most
,fi-ecpently ut the base-adhesiw irrterj&xT oj’ the matul base.\ Dumuge c~urr.wtl 17~
spot-Ll’eldinR of bruckets to AawL\ wus implicated us u ,j~~ctor uflecti,l,q bond .~trrn~th.

Key words: Orthodontic bases, direct bonding, bond strength

S
ince its introduction more than a decade ago, direct bonding of orthodontic
brackets to teeth has been accepted and used by the orthodontist. In a recent survey of
nearly 2,000 orthodontists, it was found that 93 percent used some form of bonding in
their practice.’ With this popularity, there are now available a number of commercial
direct-bonding metal bases, including perforated, mesh, and photo-etched designs.
In vitro bond testing of direct-bonding systems characteristically has shown that bond
failures occur at the base-adhesive interface for metal bases.’ i Yet few studies have
evaluated design parameters of bases. Reynolds and von Fraunhofer’j. ’ have studied mesh
size and compared mesh to perforated brackets.
The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate design characteristics and bond
strengths of fourteen commercial direct-bonding metal bases with commercially attached
brackets. The characteristics evaluated included area of bonding, mesh size, and type.
Tensile bond strength was determined with two direct-bonding adhesives using plastic
cylinders and natural teeth as substrates. These data should aid the orthodontist in the
selection of a direct-bonding base.

Based on a thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master’s degree in the
Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies at The University of Michigan, 1980.
Correspondence concerning this article should be directed to John M. Powers, School of Dentistry,
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich. 48109. Reprints may be requested from Dr. Powers.
*Practicing orthodontist in Muskegon, Mich.
**Professor of Dentistry, Department of Dental Materials, School of Dentistry. University of
Michigan.

630 oOO2-Y416/80/120630+ lO$Ol IO/O 0 1980 The C.V Mo$by Co.

Volume 78
Number 6
Fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases 631

Fig. 1. Plastic cylinder with undercut to hold adhesive and with mounting jig used to place the metal
base.

Materials and methods

Fourteen commercial metal bases with attached twin edgewise brackets for direct
bonding to central incisors were evaluated for design characteristics and bond strength.
Codes, catalog numbers, and manufacturers of the products tested are listed in Table I.
Design characteristics of the bases included base dimensions, nominal area, and mesh
size. The nominal area of each base was measured by planimetry* of enlarged photo-
graphs. The mesh size of the bases (except C, H, and N) was determined from these
photographs as wires per linear inch.
Plastic cylinders and human enamel were used as substrates for bond testing. The
plastic cylinders were prepared with undercut holes to gain retention of the bonding
adhesive. A special jig* (Fig. 1) was constructed to allow the bases to be mounted on the
plastic blocks perpendicular to the debonding force. Base E was also tested with freshly
extracted maxillary central incisors mounted in self-curing resin so that only the labial
surface was exposed. The teeth were cleaned for 60 seconds with a fluoride-free pumice
paste? and were bonded following manufacturers’ recommendations for etching the tooth
and placing the bracket. The bonding adhesive was confined to the area of the base and
was not overlapped onto the labial surface of the base. Contouring of the bases was not
necessary, because the substrates were flat. Tie wires* were attached, one on each wing of
the twin edgewise bracket, so that the debonding force would be applied over the center of
the bracket.
The bonding adhesives (A$ and B”) were mixed according to manufacturers’ instruc-
*Model 620015 Polar Planimeter, Keuffel and Esser Company, Morristown, N.J.
*Precise, Lee Pharmaceuticals, South El Monte, Calif.
*Size 0.12, Unitek Corp., Monrovia, Calif.
§Endure, adhesive base H0085, adhesive catalyst 9F040, Ormco Corp., Glendora, Calif.
l’Solo-Tach. No. 040379, L.D. Caulk Co., Milford, Del.
 Table 1. Code, product, catalog number, and manufacturer of the bases tested

A Trim Line base 665.Base American Orthodontics

002.008-Bracket 17 14 Cambridge Ave.
Sheboygan. WI\. 530X1
B Ultra-Trim Line base 663-Base Amertcan Orthodonticr
002.008.Bracket
C Laminated perforated 208.176.Base ‘I‘.P. Laboratories, Inc.
base 280-lO4-Bracket P.O. Box 73
La Porte, Ind 46350
D Laminated mesh base 210.357.Base T.P, Laboratories. lnc
280-104-Bracket
E Mini-mesh base 300~0059-Base Ormoco Corporation
100.3022.Bracket 1332 S. Lone Hill Ave.
Glendora, Cahf. Y 1740
F Ormesh wide central 300-003 I -Base Ormco Corporation
lO&3022-Bracket
G Foil-mesh base BB-320-Base Masel Orthodontics Div.
EDG-6 0.022 x 0.028-Bracket 302 1 Darneli Rd
Phtladelphia. Pa. 19 154
H Micro-Lok base K232-CN-22-Base and GAC International. Inc.
bracket P 0. Box 374
Commack, N.Y. 11725
1 Lok-Mesh base D-2205.Base Rocky Mountain Orthodontics
A-0216.Bracket P.O. Box 17085
Denver, Cola X02 17
J Mini-Dyna Bond base 019-41 I-Base Unitek Corporation
OOI-377-Bracket ‘724 South Peck Rd.
Monrovia. Cahf. 91016
K Dyna Bond base 019.31 I-Base Umtek Corporation
001.377.Bracket
L Micro-mesh base Micro-mesh U-l-Base “A”-Company, Inc.
U IR-022/SBracket I 1436 Sorrento Valley Rd.
San Diego, Calif. 92121
M Foil-mesh base Foil-mesh U-I -Base “A”-Company. Inc.
UlR-022/SBracket
N Peripheral perforated Perp.-pet-f. U- 1-Base “A”-Company. Inc
base U I R-022iSBracket

tions and placed into the plastic cylinder by means of a syringe.* Adhesive from each
individual mix was also applied to each base, with special attention to wiping the adhesive
into the retention areas. Each base then was pressed into adhesive on a plastic cylinder or
tooth (for base E). The bonded substrates were stored for 24 hours in water at 37” C. before
testing with a loading jig (Fig. 2) described in detail by Eden, Craig, and Peyton.” The jig
allowed the samples to be aligned to minimize shear forces during loading in tension.
Samples were debonded by a testing machine? at a crosshead rate of 2 mm. per minute. The
force required to debond the base was recorded and was divided by the nominal area of the

*C-R Syringe, Cleve-Dent., Cleveland, Ohio.

tModel TT-BM, In&on Corp., Canton, Mass.
Volume 78
Number 6
Fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases 633

Fig. 2. Apparatus for testing tensile bond force of metal bases.

base to obtain bond strength. The failure interface was identified visually. The diametral
tensile strength of the bonding adhesives was determined as described by Earnshaw and
Smith. lo
Five replications were tested for each condition. Mean values and standard deviations
of bond strength and diametral tensile strength were computed. Bond strength data for the
plastic and tooth substrates were analyzed statistically by analysis of variance” with a
factorial design. Means were ranked by a Scheffe interval’* calculated at a 95 percent level
of confidence. Differences between any two means that were larger than the Scheffe
interval were statistically significant.

Results
A photograph of the bases is shown in Fig. 3. All the bases tested were of the
foil-mesh variety except bases C, H, and N. Base C was a laminated perforated base, H
was photo-etched, and N was a peripheral perforated base. Edgewise brackets had been
Table 11. Code. mesh size. base dimensions. nomlnal area. and bond qrengh tar
adhesives A and B tested on plastic blocks for bases

Horrd srrerrgrh f kg. / 1111~1.

“j
Base dimen.siorzs ---
Nominul
Code Mesh size (length x width) (mm.) urea (mm.‘) .4dha/w :I .Adhe.uw 5

N * 5.6 X S.7 26.69 0.28 (0.04):- 0.41 (0.04)‘;

D no 4.1 x 4.‘) 16.89 0.34 (0.06) 0.46 (0.13)
G 80 5.5 x 6.2 28.1’) 0.30 (0.06) O.S4 (0.06)
c * 4.1 x 4.‘) 16.79 0.34 (0.08) O.SY (0.08)
F 100 5.7 x 6.0 21.16 0.46 (0.04) O.SY (0.05)
I 80 3.7 x 5.0 16.68 0.50 (0.02) 0.59 (O.OY)
J 40 4.0 x 3.9 13.45 0.44 (0.08) 0.61 (0.1 I)
K 40 4.4 x 5.0 17.65 0.42 (0.08) tJ.62 (0.04)
L 80 3.7 x 4.3 15.60 0.46 (0. IO) 0.68 (0.05)
M x0 4. I x 5.0 19.58 0.55 (0.05) 0.72 (0.07)
H * 3.3 x 4.x IS.17 0 53 (0.08) 0 91 (0.07)
A 60 4.0 x 5.x 20.44 0.65 (0. 1 I) O.Y4 (0. IO)
B 60 3.0 x 5.7 15.28 0.87 (0. IO) I .S? (o.tl7)
E 100 3.7 x 5.1 16.25 I 17 (0. II) I .83 (0. IO)

*Not applicable.
tMean value of five replications with standard deviations in parentheses. The Scheffe interval for comparisons
of any two means among bases was 0.33 kg./mm.2 when tested on plastic blocks. The coefficient of variation
was 12 percent.

Table 111.Bond strength for base E using adhesivesA and B and plastic and enamel substrates
Bond strength (kg. /mm. ‘)

Adhesive Nuturul teeth Plustic cylinder

A I .26 (0.07)* I .32 (0.1 I)

B 1.69 (0.07) I .83 (0. IO)

*Mean value of five replications with standard deviations in parentheses. Scheffe interval for comparison of
means of natural teeth and plastic cylinders was 0.17 k&/mm.’

spot-welded to the bases by the manufacturer, with the exception of base E, where the
bracket had been brazed to the base.
The code, mesh size, dimensions, and nominal area of the bases are listed in Table II.
The nominal area ranged from 13.45 mm.’ for base J to 28.19 mm.2 for base G. The sizes
of the wire mesh used in the manufacturing of the various mesh type bases were 40, 60,
80, and 100 mesh.
Mean values and standard deviations of tensile bond strength for each of the bases with
adhesives A and B using plastic cylinders also are listed in Table II. The bases are ranked
according to increasing bond strength with adhesive B. The tensile bond strength ranged
from 0.28 kg./mm.* to 1.32 kg./mm.* with adhesive A and from 0.41 kg./mm.* to 1.83
kg./mm.2 with adhesive B. The bond strength was always greater for adhesive B, but the
difference was not always significant statistically. With the plastic cylinders 128 of 140
failures (91.4 percent) occurred at the mesh-adhesive interface, eleven failures were
Volume 18
Number 6
Fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases 635

Fig. 3. Photograph of bases A through N. (Magnification, x2.2.)

within the bracket, and one was within the adhesive. The failures within the bracket
occurred with adhesive B and involved separation of the bracket or foil from the mesh.
These failures were distributed as follows: A, four of five; D, one of five; G, five of five; and
J, one of five. The one failure within the adhesive occurred with base E and adhesive A.
The mean values and standard deviations for tensile bond strength for natural teeth and
plastic cylinders using base E and adhesives A and B are listed in Table III. There was no
significant difference between the bond strength for each substrate for either adhesive at
the 95 percent level of confidence. The failure location of base E with natural teeth or
plastic cylinders was at the base-adhesive interface, with one exception. One adhesive
failure occurred with adhesive A on a plastic cylinder.
The mean values based on five replications and standard deviations of the diametral
tensile strength for the two adhesives were A, 3.73 (0.52) kg./mm.2 and B, 5.00 (0.36)
kg./mm.2.

Discussion
This investigation evaluated the bond strength of fourteen commercial direct-bonding
metal bases with commercially attached brackets. Base E was tested with teeth because it
had the highest bond values to the plastic substrates with both adhesives A and B. If base
E did not debond at the tooth-adhesive interface, it would then be reasonable to assume
that bases with weaker adhesive-base bond strengths would not debond at the tooth-
adhesive interface either. Since there was no significant difference in bond strength with
either adhesive between the teeth or plastic substrates, there was no further need to use teeth
for the remaining bases. Plastic cylinders were chosen as substrates because central incisors
are hard to obtain. The plastic cylinders appear to be an acceptable model because in vitro
bond failures are observed most frequently at the base-adhesive interface.2-7 In this study
 Fig. 4. Scanning electron micrograph of base M

the most retentive base (E) failed at the base-adhesive interface when tested on enamel in
vitro.
The weakest link in the adhesive-base bonding systems tested in vitro continues to be
the base-adhesive interface. Clinically, more failures may be observed at the enamel-
adhesive interface than are observed in vitro, because ideal bonding to enamel is much
more difficult to achieve in vivo. Improvements in bond strength of direct bonding
systems in vivo, therefore, are dependent not only upon improved retention to bases but
also on improved techniques to achieve more ideal bonding of the adhesive to the enamel.
The emphasis in the present study, however, was on evaluation of design characteristics of
metal bases.
The data shown in Table II indicate a statistically significant difference among some of
the bases. Bases B and E both had high values of bond strength as compared to the other
bases. Several factors have been implicated as being important in the design of the base as
related to retention of the adhesive. One of these factors is the size of the base. The
over-all size of the base is determined by the area of the tooth available for bonding; the
larger the surface available for bonding, the larger may be the base. This over-all size
factor also relates to the nominal area of the base available for retaining the adhesive.
Analysis of correlation l1 for adhesives A and B demonstrated that bond strength was
independent of the nominal area for the bases tested. This independence is in agreement
with the observations of Reynolds and von Fraunhofer.”
Another factor that may affect the retentive properties of the base is mesh size. As
shown in Table II, the mesh sizes of the bases studied varied from 40 to 100 mesh.
Analysis of correlation ii for adhesives A and B indicated that bond strength was indepen-
dent of mesh size for the bases tested. Reynolds and von Fraunhofer,” however, found
with experimental meshes spot-welded to lingual buttons that coarser meshes were more
retentive than the finer meshes. The present results indicate that other factors are important
in determining the retentiveness of a base with a commercially attached bracket.
Volume 78
Number 6
Fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases 637

Fig. 5. Scanning electron micrograph of one spot-weld of base M.

Fig. 6. Scanning electron micrograph of base E.

A factor mentioned only briefly in the literature is the damage to the bases resulting
from the spot-welding of the brackets to the bases.13 As shown in Fig. 3, spot-welding
appears to cause damage to the base. In Fig. 4 a scanning electron micrograph of base M
shows five large spot-welds that have caused considerable damage to the mesh. Fig. 5
shows one of the five spot-welds of base M enlarged. The mesh is completely obliterated
by the spot-welding, causing the wire to fracture and leaving sharp areas exposed.
Figs. 6 and 7 show scanning electron micrographs of bases E and F, respectively. Both
bases are made by the same manufacturer, using the same size wire mesh. The difference
is that base E has the bracket brazed to the base, while base F has the bracket spot-welded
to the base. Also, base F has a nominal area 1.7 times that of base E. Even though base E
 Fig. 7. Scanning electron micrograph of base F

has less area than F, base E has 3.1 times greater tensile bond strength than base F.
As shown in Fig. 3, bases A and B also exhibit visible evidence of damage caused by
spot-welding. The damage done by the spot-welding of A and B seems minimal compared
to some of the other spot-welded brackets. This minimal damage may be a factor in the
relatively high values for tensile bond strength. It should be noted that base A had an 80
percent failure rate in which the bracket and foil separated during tensile loading. Spot-
weld damage not only may decrease the nominal area available for retention but also may
produce an area of stress concentration which can initiate the fracture of the adhesive at
the adhesive-base interface. Inadequate spot-welding may lead to separation of the bracket
from the base.

Conclusions
1. Testing of fourteen bases for tensile bond strength resulted in the determination of
statistically significant differences. Bases E and B had the highest values of tensile bond
strength, while bases N and D had the lowest values.
2. Tensile bond strength was found to be independent of nominal area and mesh size
for the bases tested.
3. Bond failures with plastic substrates occurred at the base-adhesive interface (91.4
percent) or involved separation of the bracket from the base (7.9 percent). All bond
failures with natural teeth occurred at the base-adhesive interface for base E.
4. Tensile bond strength was always greater for adhesive B than adhesive A, but the
difference was not always significant statistically.
5. Adhesive B had a higher diametral tensile strength than adhesive A.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the cooperation of the following companies in providing com-
mercial products: “A’‘-Company, Inc., American Orthodontics. GAC International, Inc., L. D.
Caulk Company, Masel Orthodontics Division, Ormco Corporation, Rocky Mountain Orthodontics,
T. P. Laboratories, Inc., and Unitek Corporation.
Volume 78
Number 6
Fourteen direct-bonding orthodontic bases 639

REFERENCES
1. Gorelick, L.: Bonding/The state of the art: A national survey, J. Clin. Orthod. 13: 39-53, 1979.
2. Gorelick, L.: Bonding metal brackets with a self-polymerizing sealant-composite. A 12-month assessment,
Ahl. J. ORTHOD. 71: 542-553, 1977.
3. Reynolds, I. R., and von Fraunbofer, J. A.: Direct bonding in orthodontics: A comparison of attachments,
Br. J. Orthod. 4: 65-69, 1977.
4. Reynolds, I. R., and von Fraunhofer, J. A.: Direct bonding of orthodontic attachments to teeth: The relation
of adhesive bond strength to gauze mesh size, Br. J. Orthod. 3: 91-95, 1976.
5. Lee, H. L., Orlowski, J. A., Enabe, E., and Rogers, B. J.: In virro and in viva evaluation of direct-bonding
orthodontic bracket systems, J. Clin. Orthod. 8: 227-238, 1974.
6. Keizer, S.. ten Cate, J. M., and Arends, J.: Direct bonding of orthodontic brackets, AM. J. ORTHOD. 69:
318-327, 1976.
7. Faust, J. B., Grego, G. N., Fan, P. L., and Powers, J. M.: Penetration coefficient, tensile strength, and
bond strength of thirteen direct bonding orthodontic cements, AM. J. ORTHOD. 73: 512-525, 1978.
8. Dickinson, P. T.: Evaluation of fourteen direct bonding orthodontic bases, Master’s thesis, Ann Arbor,
1980, University of Michigan, School of Dentistry.
9. Eden, G. T., Craig, R. G., and Peyton, F. A.: Evaluation of a tensile test for direct tilling resins, J. Dent.
Res. 49: 428-434, 1970.
10. Eamshaw, R., and Smith, D. C.: The tensile and compressive strength of plaster and stone, Aust. Dent. J.
11: 415-422, 1966.
11. University of Michigan, Statistical Research Laboratory: A manual of elementary statistics using MIDAS,
Ann Arbor, 1975, Statistical Research Laboratory.
12. Guenther, W. C.: Analysis of variance, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1964, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
13. Sheykholeslam, Z., and Brandt, S.: Some factors affecting the bonding of orthodontic attachments to tooth
surface, J. Clin. Orthod. 11: 734-743, 1977.